I really like Simon PJ's "proposal for records in Haskell". Some reasons for this are: - Anonymous record types. For example, an anonymous record type can easily hold ad-hoc keyword arguments. (Oh, just noticed that said in the document.) - To quote the document, "We can express polymorphic update (a standard awkward case) quite nicely". (If I'm not mistaken (please tell me if so), OverloadedRecordFields proposal fails here.) - Nice syntax (in my opinion).
Possible record member set syntax: let x.k = value in x Pros: - No new syntax - Least Surprise Cons: - Verbosity (especially such: (\ x -> let x.k = value in x)) On 20/10/2011, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > | Subject: Re: Records in Haskell > | > | I have added my proposal to the wiki.The only downsides to it that I can > see are: > > Thanks to Barney for articulating a proposal for records in Haskell. Over > various plane rides and ICFP chats I've worked out some more details. It's > not as simple as I'd hoped. > > I'm underwater with stuff at the moment but I did find the time to capture a > summary here > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields > > Please do correct errors, suggest solutions, or explore variants. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > -- Matthew Farkas-Dyck _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
