On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote: > Quoth Greg Weber <g...@gregweber.info>, > ... > > Many of the built-in record proposals seem more ambitious (create a new > > record from an existing one, generalize in some other direction). More > > power or generalization could be very useful, but it can wait for later - > > Haskell's records are glaringly bad because they lack name-spacing. > > > > I think one of the problems being faced with improving records is a false > > choice between a quick but hacky library desugaring or a major > "Extensible" > > records built into the compiler. What I am proposing is that (unless > > someone proposes a great desugaring solution) we make it the immediate > goal > > to have records built into the compiler, but done in the simplest > (perhaps > > least "Extensible") way that just accomplishes name-spacing. > > It's sure easy to imagine something like that happening, in principle, > but ... are you saying that extensibility specifically has been a major > issue? Could be, I haven't been paying so much attention. >
Yes, I believe it is common knowledge and stated in many places that the community cannot decide on the best *extensible* record system. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC:FAQ#Extensible_Records > Wouldn't extensibility more or less come along with row polymorphism? > I mean, my understanding of the term is that an expression that > instantiates a particular record field, can incorporate a record lacking > that field, which seems to me to be implicit in row polymorphism anyway. > I would think row polymorphism is a must-have. > Perhaps if you want *extensible* records. If you would like to make some progress with records in the near future rather than keeping records in limbo, I think we really need to give up for the moment on any higher form of abstraction than straight-forward name-spacing. > If you're interested in looking at old, Haskell-related record systems, > also see O'Haskell. > I am interested in any potential solution. You could link to it on the ExtensibleRecords wiki page and explain it a bit for future reference. O'Haskell seems to be very much concerned with being as extensible as possible - to the point of trying to do OO in Haskell. Greg Weber > Donn > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users