>
> A question about Haskell 98: is this legal:
>
> data T = T1 Int Int Int
> | T2 Float Float Float
>
> f (T1 {}) = True
> f (T2 {}) = False
>
>The point is that T is not declared using
>record syntax, but f nevertheless uses record
>syntax in the pattern match to mean "T1 with any arguments".
>This is less clumsy than writing
>
> f (T1 _ _ _) = True
> f (T2 _ _ _) = False
>
>Some people, it turns out, use this a lot. Hugs accepts it.
>GHC didn't until recently. But is it Haskell 98.
>
>The Haskell 98 report, interpreted literally, certainly does
>not prohibit it, though I certainly didn't have this example in mind.
>As ever, this will go on the "Typos" page (I have two or three
>things to add there).
>This is hardly a big deal, but I'm in the habit of publishing
>proposals before implementing them.
Will this change be compatible with the first class (extensible?)
records work?
I know that first class records will not be part of Haskell98, but
it would be nice if Haskell2000 (or whatever) could be close to the
stable language of H98.
Can we expect first class records in the near future?
Laszlo Nemeth
