Records in Haskell

[Greg Weber]

Are Records stalled out again? I am perfectly willing to leave the fate of
records up to a willing and capable implementer. That seems much better
than waiting another 5 years for perfection :)

As an intermediate step, is it possible to put a warning in 7.4 when the
dot operator is used without a space so that it can be reserved for usage
with a records solution? Or will the new records solution be turned on by
an extension anyways?

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<simonpj at microsoft.com>wrote:

> | would inclusion of such a record system into GHC mean that plans for
> | first-class labels (<http://tinyurl.com/7fppj32>) are abandoned? That
> | would be a pity, since first-class labels are very useful to implement
> | record systems that go beyond what the abovementioned record system
> | provides. See, for example, my work on records:
> |      <
> http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~jeltsch/research/ppdp-2010-paper.pdf>
> |      <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/records>
>
> The story is summarised at
>        http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records
>
> First-class labels are one point in the vast swamp of competing and
> overlapping proposals for records.  I think they are summarise here:
>        http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ExtensibleRecords
> I am unsure which of this list of proposals you are referring to. The URL
> you quote is this
>        http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/FirstClassLabels
> but it doesn't seem to actually contain a design, merely some options for
> a design that is implicit.  If you do have a design you advocate, it would
> be good to add it to the list at
>        http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ExtensibleRecords
> perhaps explaining which of the other members of the list it subsumes.
>
> Because there are so many proposals I have not gone ahead with any of
> them.  The most recent thread, articulated at
>        http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records
> is to ask what is the *smallest change* that would solve the *most
> pressing problem*, namely the inability to use the same field name in
> different records.  First class labels is (I assume) much more ambitious.
>  But maybe not.
>
> Anything you can do to bring clarity to the swamp, by editing the above
> two pages, would be a great service to the community.  At the moment, we
> are stuck in an infinite loop.
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20111209/5c2c1957/attachment.htm>