AntC <anthony_clayden <at> clear.net.nz> writes: > > Gábor Lehel <illissius <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > ... > > > > ... My main complaint against DORF is > > that having to write fieldLabel declarations for every field you want > > to use is onerous. If that could be solved, I don't think there are > > any others. (But even if it can't be, I still prefer DORF.) > > > > Thank you Gábor, I understand that 'complaint'. > > I have been trying to keep the design 'clean': either the module is totally > DORF, or it's totally H98. > > ... > There have been several suggestions amongst the threads to mix H98-style > fields with DORF-style records (or perhaps I mean vice-versa!): > * We'd need to change the record decl syntax to 'flag' DORF fields (somehow). > ... > There's one difficulty I can see: > ... > > Suggestions please! >
Wow! well thank you for all that hard thought going into my question. I've put up a tweak to the proposal as Option Three: "Mixed In-situ and Declared ORF". This does _not_ re-introduce H98 style fields, but does simulate them in a way that fits better with DORF. Do I dub this MIDORF? How will the cat with the hariballs pronounce it ;-)? [Oh, and sorry Isaac: the word count on the wiki has gone up some more.] AntC _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users