I really like this proposal (except I would bike shed about the syntax for record selector to be dot, like in the majority of languages.) In other languages dot is a binary operator, so that r.x selects the x field from record r.
In this proposal #x is a unary operator (more of a lexical modifier really), which returns a first-class composable value for the field. Only later does it meet a record. This is a big difference. (Moreover, debating dot has proved a graveyard for previous discussions.) I’m glad you like the base proposal. Simon From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com] Sent: 24 January 2015 01:05 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: Adam Gundry; Iavor Diatchki; Simon Marlow; ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: Re: GHC support for the new "record" package I really like this proposal (except I would bike shed about the syntax for record selector to be dot, like in the majority of languages.) On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: | I just | noticed that it effectively gives us a syntax for identifier-like Symbol | singletons, which could be useful in completely different contexts Indeed so. I have written a major increment to https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Redesign which people reading this thread may find interesting. Look for "Plan B". For the first time I think I can see a nice, simple, elegant, orthogonal story. Simon _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
