Quoth Greg Weber <g...@gregweber.info>,
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote:
...
>> 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.
No, to be clear on that, I haven't given much thought to extensibility
per se, I was thinking row polymorphism is a valuable feature on its own,
and extensibility just seemed to me to be an implicit side benefit.
In principle, a "less is more" approach to language features appeals to me
a lot, but not to the point where we just preemptively give up on "any
higher form of abstraction". Given the potential for backwards
incompatibility, you'd want to have something pretty good to show for it.
Donn
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
