> >> Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj <at> microsoft.com> writes: > > > > > No! no! no! For records _don't_ put records in nested/sub-modules, and _don't_ require them in separate modules (as currently). Here's how ... >
I've put up my proposal for namespacein Records/fields in Haskell, as an extra page linked from the Wiki. http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records Apologies for the rough-as-guts editting. AntC > [There may be other reasons for nested/sub-modules, but records ain't it.] > > The reason was hinted at way back in Chris Done's attachment to the original > Records wiki http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records "types in a non- > trivial project". > > Let's say I have a database application with a field (meaning type) > customer_id. Then it appears in records for name and address, pricing, order > entry, etc. This is not a name 'clash', it's 'intended sharing'. (It really > galls me to even put it that way for explanatory purposes. Really it's the > **same** customer_id.) > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
