[I replied on @cafe but didn't get any response. Trying again here.]
Barney Hilken wrote:
>> What about just implementing the cheapest solution that still gets
>> us most
>> of the way?
>
>> (3) If it is as cheap (to implement) as advertised then there is no
>> great
>> risk involved. If it turns out the missing features are a great
>> show-stopper for some people (which I don't believe) then let them
>> present
>> their case afterwards, with good examples at hand. We can still
>> decide to
>> aim for a higher goal in the long term.
>
>> If in doubt, chose the solution that is easier to implement.
>
> Since this paper, there have been several proposals which can be 90%
> implemented as libraries, using either functional dependencies or
> associated types. These all have much more expressive type systems
> than the SPJ paper, yet need very little compiler support. The
> question is, which one (if any) should get this small but necessary
> support?
Could you be more specific? Which proposals exactly do you mean and where
can I read more about them?
(I know about HList/OOHaskell which is ingenious, of course, but not even
the authors propose that a new Record System for Haskell should be based on
their library, compiler support or no.)
Cheers
Ben
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
