RECOMMENDATION: Use 'labeled fields' rather than records when talking about labeled fields

[John Meacham]

This isn't so much a proposal as a recommendation for terminology we use
when talking about things on the list and proposals in general. Calling
haskell's labeled field mechanism 'records' leads to all sorts of
confusion for people that come from other languages where 'records'
means something else, this is compounded by the fact there are several
actual record proposals out there that are orthogonal to labeled fields,
but calling fields 'records' confuses this issue.

I believe we have already gotten rid of every reference to 'record' in
the report in favor of 'labeled field' or just 'field', so it would be
good if we could use the same terminology in all discussions. Not only
will it help avoid confusion but it is a more accurate description of
what Haskell actually provides and is in line with the report. 

So, let's call 'record puns' 'field puns' as a first step.

        John


-- 
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ - http://notanumber.net/