On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 18:28 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
Well, without a replacement, it seems odd to remove it. Also, Haskell
currently doesn't _have_ a record syntax (I think it was always a
misnomer to call it that) it has 'labeled fields'. None of the proposed
record syntaxes fit the same
On 7 Jul 2009, at 02:28, John Meacham wrote:
Haskell currently doesn't _have_ a record syntax (I think it was
always a
misnomer to call it that) it has 'labeled fields'. ...
and a reworking of the standard to not refer to the current system
as a
'record syntax' but rather a 'labeled
Hello Duncan,
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:15:42 AM, you wrote:
For one thing the spec currently says that pragmas cannot change the
semantics of the program. That would have to read apart from the
LANGUAGE pragma.
sometime ago i've proposed to make a language statement a part of
haskell. i
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On 7 Jul 2009, at 02:28, John Meacham wrote:
Haskell currently doesn't _have_ a record syntax (I think it was always a
misnomer to call it that) it has 'labeled fields'. ...
and a reworking of the standard to not refer to the current system as a
'record syntax' but
Hello,
I do not think that we should remove the current record/named fields
syntax, at least for the moment. I use it a lot, and I do not want to
add extra pragmas or extensions to my cabal file. In fact, one of
the purposes of Haskell', the way I understand it, is exactly to just
choose a
According to http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Status,
ticket #99 was rejected, but the tickets own page,
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/99, says
probably yes. Which is it?
I was about to propose this myself, but decided to check the trac just
in case it had
Well, without a replacement, it seems odd to remove it. Also, Haskell
currently doesn't _have_ a record syntax (I think it was always a
misnomer to call it that) it has 'labeled fields'. None of the proposed
record syntaxes fit the same niche as labeled fields so I don't see them
going away even
