On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote: > Quoth Greg Weber <g...@gregweber.info>, > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote: > ... > >> I would think row polymorphism is a must-have. > >> > > > > Perhaps if you want *extensible* records. If you would like to make some > > progress with records in the near future rather than keeping records in > > limbo, I think we really need to give up for the moment on any higher > form > > of abstraction than straight-forward name-spacing. > > No, to be clear on that, I haven't given much thought to extensibility > per se, I was thinking row polymorphism is a valuable feature on its own, > and extensibility just seemed to me to be an implicit side benefit. > > In principle, a "less is more" approach to language features appeals to me > a lot, but not to the point where we just preemptively give up on "any > higher form of abstraction". Given the potential for backwards > incompatibility, you'd want to have something pretty good to show for it. >
This is a valid concern. The goal I think we should have is to just to get a release with simple name-spacing resulting in module-like dot notation member selection plus a similar easy syntax for updates. Every extensible records solution I have seen wants this plus some other features. Admittedly I don't understand any of the extensible solutions, so if you can come up with a specific example of backwards incompatibility that would be very useful. > > Donn > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
