Keep the present Haskell record system!
bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com
Sun Mar 19 10:12:52 EST 2006
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 extension is the basis for record concatenation, which is
CR> the basis for composing programs that use records. for instance,
CR> if you have two attribute grammars that compute two sets of
CR> attributes and you want to compose them into a single grammar,
CR> you run into troubles. (dual arguments for extensible variants,
CR> be it for exception types, or for extensible grammars that cover
CR> haskell+extensions without having to specify and maintain two
CR> separate grammars). and the concept of partial type specifications
CR> is not uncommon in Haskell (polymorphism, type classes).
(sorry for late answer)
this again should be maintained in "Haskell way", i.e. with static
data Pizza = ...
data Cola = ...
type PizzaWithCola = Pizza+Cola
weight :: PizzaWithCola -> Double
weight pc = pizzaWeight pc + colaWeight pc
pizzaWeight :: Pizza -> Double
colaWeight :: Cola -> Double
it is one more remainder of what we need OOP-like features such as
data fields inheritance. O'Haskell has something in this area,
although afair it doesn't support the multiple inheritance
Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com
More information about the Haskell-prime