Are you sure extensible records are needed, I used to really want them
until I developed some idioms which seem to replace most needs for them.
(1) Haskell Records
just plain old haskell records can be used in an extensible fashion
quite easily, just provide an alternate to the constructor which f
I just read your proposal for "lightweight extensible records for
Haskell" and find it great.
But I just wonder : why not keeping both records systems (Haskell 98 and
extensible) with their own syntax, introducing for example [{..}] for
extensible records for example. This would resolve perform
Thanks, have read the paper, however also saw the paper by Simon
Peyton-Jones and
Mark Jones on Lightweight Extensible Records for Haskell, which I think
Simon refered
to in an earlier post... would it not be better to have this instead?
Regards,
Keean Schupke.
Alastair Reid wrote:
Actu
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 10:48 pm, Nicolas Oury wrote:
> I am going to try to persuade you:
>
> * first of all, it seems to be needed in order to make "first class
> modules" (cf your paper) . And I think that a true module system would
> be useful. But I may be wrong.
>
> * As far as I am co
t is easy to understand, safe and avoid to rename
with different names some fields that should have the same name.
* ...
I could try find other reasons tomorrow.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Nicolas Oury [mailto:Nicolas.Oury@;ens-lyon.fr]
| Sent: 06 November 2002 08:38
| To: [EMAIL P
> Just a quick point, which I'm sure you realise, but static typing
> gives you guarantees about the runnability of a program that dynamic
> typing breaks...
Which, presumably, is why he wants T-Rex which gives strong typing and
extensible records and comes from the same great source (MP Jones)
t
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Just a quick point, which I'm sure you realise, but static typing gives
> you guarantees about the runnability of
> a program that dynamic typing breaks... You can do almost anything you
> would want to use dynamic types for
> using a sufficently broad
Just a quick point, which I'm sure you realise, but static typing gives
you guarantees about the runnability of
a program that dynamic typing breaks... You can do almost anything you
would want to use dynamic types for
using a sufficently broad algebraic data type. For instance you could
create
ded otherwise.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Nicolas Oury [mailto:Nicolas.Oury@;ens-lyon.fr]
| Sent: 06 November 2002 08:38
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re : Extensible records in Haskell
|
| > > Hello, is there something like extensible records in ghc?
|
| >Are you w
> > Hello, is there something like extensible records in ghc?
>Are you wanting something like Hugs' T-Rex or did you have something
>else in mind?
Hello,
For what I understand of T-Rex it is what I wait.
I need something that can allow to use records without declaring their
type first and th
> Hello, is there something like extensible records in ghc?
Are you wanting something like Hugs' T-Rex or did you have something
else in mind?
--
Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reid Consulting (UK) Limited http://www.reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk/alastair/
___
11 matches
Mail list logo
