Am Montag, den 07.11.2011, 23:30 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones: > Wolfgang > > Is there a wiki page giving a specific, concrete design for the > proposal you advocate? Something at the level of detail of > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields?
Well, I don’t propose a new record system as a language feature. Instead, I’ve implemented a record system as a library. The paper at <http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~jeltsch/research/ppdp-2010-paper.pdf> describes this in detail, and the records package at <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/records> is the actual library. My stance is that it is possibly better if we do not try to include a one-size-fits-it-all record system into the language, but if the language provided support for basic things that almost all record system *libraries* would need. In my opinion, there is at least one such thing that should get language support: field labels. There is already the proposal at <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/FirstClassLabels> for first-class field labels. > I am unsure whether you regard it as an alternative to the above, or > something that should be done as well. And if the former, how does > it relate to the challenge articulated on > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records, namely how to make > Haskell's existing named-field system work better? I don’t think that everyone should use my record system. I see it as one member of a family of reasonable record systems. My intention, when developing my record system, was not to make the existing system better, since I needed quite a lot of advanced features that anything near Haskell’s existing record system couldn’t give me. So I started something completely new. > Thanks > > Simon Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users