If we only add syntax when the language extension is used then we are not
clobbering everyone. # is not that common of an operator. I would much
rather upset a few people by taking that operator back when they opt-in to
turning the extension on than having a worse records implementation.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Edward Kmett <ekm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Adam Gundry <a...@well-typed.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback, Iavor!
>>
>> On 23/01/15 19:30, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>> > 2. I would propose that we simplify things further, and provide just one
>> > class for overloading:
>> >
>> > class Field (name :: Symbol)
>> > rec rec'
>> > field field'
>> > | name rec -> field
>> > , name rec' -> field'
>> > , name rec field' -> rec'
>> > , name rec' field -> rec
>> > where
>> > field :: Functor f => Proxy name -> (field -> f field') ->
>> > (rec -> f rec')
>> >
>> > I don't think we need to go into "lenses" at all, the `field` method
>> > simply provides a functorial
>> > update function similar to `mapM`. Of course, one could use the `lens`
>> > library to
>> > get more functionality but this is entirely up to the programmer.
>> >
>> > When the ORF extension is enabled, GHC should simply generate an
>> > instance of the class,
>> > in a similar way to what the lens library does
>>
>
> > 3. I like the idea of `#x` desugaring into `field (Proxy :: Proxy "x")`,
>> > but I don't like the concrete symbol choice:
>> > - # is a valid operator and a bunch of libraries use it, so it won't
>> > be compatible with existing code.
>>
>> Ah. I didn't realise that, but assumed it was safe behind -XMagicHash.
>> Yes, that's no good.
>>
>> > - @x might be a better choice; then you could write things like:
>> > view @x rec
>> > set @x 3 rec
>> > over @x (+2) rec
>>
>> This could work, though it has the downside that we've been informally
>> using @ for explicit type application for a long time! Does anyone know
>> what the status of the proposed ExplicitTypeApplication extension is?
>
>
> I'll confess I've been keen on stealing @foo for the purpose of (Proxy ::
> Proxy foo) or (Proxy :: Proxy "foo") from the type application stuff for a
> long time -- primarily because I remain rather dubious about how well the
> type application stuff can work, once you take a type and it goes through a
> usage/generalization cycle, the order of the types you can "apply" gets all
> jumbled up, making type application very difficult to actually use. Proxies
> on the other hand remain stable. I realize that I'm probably on the losing
> side of that debate, however. But I think it is fair to say that that
> little bit of dangling syntax will be a bone that is heavily fought over. ;)
>
> > - another nice idea (due to Eric Mertens, aka glguy), which allows us
>> > to avoid additional special syntax is as follows:
>> > - instead of using special syntax, reuse the module system
>> > - designate a "magic" module name (e.g., GHC.Records)
>> > - when the renamer sees a name imported from that module, it
>> > "resolves" the name by desugaring it into whatever we want
>> > - For example, if `GHC.Records.x` desugars into `field (Proxy ::
>> > Proxy "x")`, we could write things like this:
>> >
>> > import GHC.Records as R
>> >
>> > view R.x rec
>> > set R.x 3 rec
>> > over R.x (+2) rec
>>
>> Interesting; I think Edward suggested something similar earlier in this
>> thread. Avoiding a special syntax is a definite advantage, but the need
>> for a qualified name makes composing the resulting lenses a bit tiresome
>> (R.x.R.y.R.z or R.x . R.y . R.z). I suppose one could do
>>
>> import GHC.Records (x, y, z)
>> import MyModule hiding (x, y, z)
>>
>> but having to manually hide the selector functions and bring into scope
>> the lenses is also annoying.
>
>
> In the suggestion I made as a (c) option for how to proceed around field
> names a few posts back in this thread I was hinting towards having an
> explicit use of {| foo :: x |} somewhere in the module provide an implicit
> import of
>
> import Field (foo)
>
> then users can always reference Field.foo explicitly if they don't have
> such in local scope, and names all share a common source.
>
> Of course this was in the context a Nikita style {| ... |} rather than the
> ORF { .. }.
>
> If the Nikita records didn't make an accessor, because there's no way for
> them to really do so, then there'd be nothing to conflict with.
>
> Being able to use import and use them with ORF-style records would just be
> gravy then. Users would be able to get those out of the box.
>
> -Edward
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
