Hello Claus,
Monday, March 6, 2006, 2:35:04 PM, you wrote:
also, while i like dynamic records for some types of tasks, i think
that the spirit of Haskell in whole is to give explicit definitions
of all types used and in this respect this type extension in not on
main way.
CR record
Cale Gibbard wrote: (a thoughtful response, thank you) and ...
... field labels can be renamed such that they don't overlap.
Inventing new names is not hard work.
Oh yes it is. I want meaningful names, and if the meaning of two things
is identical, then inventing separate names is hard and
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Lennart,
Monday, March 6, 2006, 9:50:24 AM, you wrote:
LA Yes, I've read the article too. And I really like the record system.
LA But an off-hand remark like that doesn't convince me.
my own opinion is that this scheme is like classes - they can be
resolved at
my own opinion is that this scheme is like classes - they can be
resolved at compile time in most real cases but noone do it because
code will be too large. if some function can accept any records which
has field 'a' then to use this function on records of different types
we need either to do
Hello Claus,
Monday, March 6, 2006, 4:30:04 PM, you wrote:
my own opinion is that this scheme is like classes - they can be
resolved at compile time in most real cases but noone do it because
code will be too large. if some function can accept any records which
has field 'a' then to use this
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:00:41AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Thus, although I agree that none is ready for inclusion in
Haskell-prime, I think we do need some mechanism for experimental
records to be tried out in real Haskell implementations before the
Haskell-double-prime committee starts
Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:26:14AM +, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
I'm increasingly convinced that the records should be left alone for
Haskell', possibly modulo some minor tweaks to polish the system.
Yes, no alternative candidate is available
