On 8 Apr 2008, at 15:26, PR Stanley wrote:
I'm sure you could introduce change gradually without too much pain.
So then you only have to get the compilers to gradually understand
it :-).
I personally think "deriving" is a descriptive term, now that I
understand its role better.
There are two processes here: deriving, i.e., inheriting an
interface; and instantiating, i.e., producing running code. Haskell
denotes derivation by "=>". And "data <a> deriving (b_1, ..., b_k)"
is really a short for
data <a>
instance b_1 where <compiler implementation>
...
instance b_k where <compiler implementation>
So "instance" seems the word that should have been used.
But discussions of a change seems is likely just a café thing - I
must go finishing mine :-).
I suppose you could consider "specialize" or "instanciate" but both
those terms are very closely associated with OO and deriving an
instance of a class with a type isn't quite like instantiation or
even specialisation.
So then you introduce a new keyword and screwing up all existing code.
We want a single word which is equivalent to "derives from".
Deriving by itself can seem a bit ambiguous at first.
What about the already used "=>"?
Hans
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
