[Haskell-cafe] I'm afraid of OverloadedLabels.
esz at posteo.de
Sun Jul 9 17:36:02 UTC 2017
> I mean yes, it's the same as in most OOP languages, but isn't it also
> bad? There must be a better way...
> Is there any alternative approach to name collisions coming?
I think we should start considering what problem we're actually solving
(the "record problem"), and where all solutions inevitably converge
toward when it comes to name resolution: ad-hoc overloading. In
particular, I think OverloadedLabels is a bad solution, and every other
special-case solution is similarly going to be bad.
My opinion is and has always been: just allow type-directed name
resolution in Haskell. All naming problems would go away instantly
without any awkward, inconsistent extensions that need new syntax and
heavy type-level machinery to work. C++ is doing it. Every OOP
language is doing it. They do it, because it's useful and convenient.
Let's do it, too!
AND PLEASE not the way an [existing proposal] suggests to do it! Please
let's just do ad-hoc overloading. There is no reason to introduce new
syntax, because syntax is completely orthogonal to this problem.
[existing proposal]: https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Haskell-Cafe