On Feb 6, 2008 12:19 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to clarify that statement. Honestly the number one problem I have > with the current records system is that labels share the same namespace. > This makes interfacing with any C library using structs quite painful. This > is why I say that I don't really care which gets implemented. The current > system is *painful* IMO, so anything which improves on it would be welcome > (even if just puts the record accessors in a per-record namespace, where > with syntactic sugar to avoid having to qualify it). > > > > You do know about: > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#disambiguate-fields > > don't you? > I did not! This is great and takes care of my immediate concerns. I do still think that all that other stuff is worthwhile, particularly I like the low overhead of using tuples, and wouldn't mind if records were similarly convenient. -- Sebastian Sylvan +44(0)7857-300802 UIN: 44640862
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
