On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:00 AM, wren ng thornton <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't been following all the different proposals out there, but the ones > I did see before tuning-out all took the stance that for each given field > either (1) this field name is unique and always clashes, or (2) this field > name is shared and never clashes. This is problematic for a number of > reasons. The particular reason I raised is that there are times when we > would like for a field name to be shared, but only shared among a specified > group of records and clashing with all other records (which may themselves > form groups that share the name as well).
I had a proposal that, I think, wouldn't have that clash/no clash distinction, because it doesn't have the notion of overloading a single symbol ala typeclasses. So I think it would sidestep that whole problem. Anyway, I copied it up at http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/SyntaxDirectedNameResolution if only so I can feel like I said my thing and can stop mentioning it :) _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
