[I replied on @cafe but didn't get any response. Trying again here.] Barney Hilken wrote: >> What about just implementing the cheapest solution that still gets >> us most >> of the way? > >> (3) If it is as cheap (to implement) as advertised then there is no >> great >> risk involved. If it turns out the missing features are a great >> show-stopper for some people (which I don't believe) then let them >> present >> their case afterwards, with good examples at hand. We can still >> decide to >> aim for a higher goal in the long term. > >> If in doubt, chose the solution that is easier to implement. > > Since this paper, there have been several proposals which can be 90% > implemented as libraries, using either functional dependencies or > associated types. These all have much more expressive type systems > than the SPJ paper, yet need very little compiler support. The > question is, which one (if any) should get this small but necessary > support?
Could you be more specific? Which proposals exactly do you mean and where can I read more about them? (I know about HList/OOHaskell which is ingenious, of course, but not even the authors propose that a new Record System for Haskell should be based on their library, compiler support or no.) Cheers Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
