(sorry, I meant to send this to the list, but only sent it to Wolfgang)
Here is my understanding of the current state of the argument:
Instead of Labels, there will be a new kind String, which is not a subkind of
*, so its elements are not types. The elements of String are strings at the
type l
Does anyone know if this below situation is as bad in say SMLNJ or OCAML?
JanBrosius
- Original Message -
From: Jan Kort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: records in
Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Jan Kort writes:
>
> > It seem that any record, no matter how trivial, can't be much
> > longer than about 200 lines in Haskell. If a try to compile a
> > 300 line record containing just:
> > data X = X {
> > f1 :: String,
> > f2 :: String,
> > f3
Jan Kort writes:
> It seem that any record, no matter how trivial, can't be much
> longer than about 200 lines in Haskell. If a try to compile a
> 300 line record containing just:
> data X = X {
> f1 :: String,
> f2 :: String,
> f3 :: String,
> ...
> f300 :: St
Hi,
It seem that any record, no matter how trivial, can't be much
longer than about 200 lines in Haskell. If a try to compile a
300 line record containing just:
data X = X {
f1 :: String,
f2 :: String,
f3 :: String,
...
f300 :: String
}
It needs about 90M h
Hi all,
I'd like to make a few comments on the proposal for simple records in
Haskell 1.3.
* The possibility of having polymorphic field types has been left out
of the proposal. Polymorphic field types essentially bring second
order polymorphism into the language, by allowing fun
>Most Lisp dialects don't have any sort of destructuring for abstract data
>types, but I question whether destructuring is really all that useful
>anyway. If you have a type with 20 or 30 components -- which is not all
>that unusual, in my experience -- it's much easier to grab t
