On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:00:41AM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > Thus, although I agree that none is ready for inclusion in > Haskell-prime, I think we do need some mechanism for experimental > records to be tried out in real Haskell implementations before the > Haskell-double-prime committee starts its work. > > Perhaps, taking the extensions-layering idea, we could say that the > current named-fields are encapsulated as an "extension that is part of > the standard". Implementations could then introduce a flag to switch > off this particular extension (current records) in conjunction with > flags to switch on experimental replacements. This would give a certain > flexibility for users to play with different systems, and the breaking > of compatibility would be explicitly notated, either by the build > options, or using a proposal like ticket #94. > > My suggestion is that we separate out everything from the Report to do > with named-field records into something like a self-contained addendum. > Whilst still an official part of the language standard, it might also be > marked as a possibility for future removal. This would make it clear > what parts of the language could be changed (or re-used without conflict) > in an alternative records system.
Sounds like a good idea to me, if it can be done. We might want to do the same thing with FDs (assuming we come up with a form good enough for Haskell'). There will be a question of how contagious these extensions are, e.g. am I using extension X if I import a module that uses it? _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime