The Future of Haskell discussion at the Haskell Workshop

[Robert Ennals]

> Karl-Filip Faxen wrote:
> =

>  | Yes, things are clearer and I rather like the idea.
>  | The only thorny issue is that the update function for
>  | field 'wibble' is formed from but not equal to the
>  | field name itself.
> =

> This could be solved by having an abstract type Field
> thusly (*):

[snip]

All very cute :-))

The downside is of course that it would no longer be a compatible extensi=
on to =

the existing Haskell language.

Current Haskell programs consider the field name to be a function from ty=
pes =

to field values. If we are to retain compatibility then we need to preser=
ve =

this.


Still very cute though :-)


[snip]


-Rob