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 performance issues and other drawbacks that you tell about in Section 5. One who want performance will use the old system, and whose who need power will use the new one.
You could give operators of type [{...}] to {...} and {…} to [{…}} to convert between the two worlds.
Best regards,
Nicolas Oury
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2002, à 10:44 , Simon Peyton-Jones a écrit :
The TRex record system is probably the main type-system extension that GHC does not currently implement. The trouble is that it's quite a bit of work. If it were just the type inference part it would be ok, but it requires new primitive operations to insert fields in records, and I think that interacts with GHC's current data structure representations.So it's feasible but it's Real Work. So far, to my surprise, no one has asked for it. You are nearly the first! Another reason for holding back is that Mark and I worked out a design, in the light of TRex (see our paper at the Haskell workshop '99), but it'd be a pity to have Hugs and GHC differing.... and I'm not sure that anyone would have enough energy to change Hugs. So for a variety of reasons, I'm inclined to leave it as a Good Reason To Use Hugs, but I could probably be persuaded otherwise. Simon
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
