[Haskell] Re: Re: Modelling languages for FP (like UML for OO)

Srinivas Nedunuri nedunuri at cs.utexas.edu
Mon Jan 23 12:09:40 EST 2006

"Bulat Ziganshin" <bulatz at HotPOP.com> wrote in message 
news:73-1823664531.20060122133738 at HotPOP.com...
> Hello Srinivas,
> Sunday, January 22, 2006, 2:20:32 AM, you wrote:
> SN> stateful, structurally rich applications in Haskell. If the next 
> version of
> SN> Haskell does support a more convenient and extensible datatype 
> mechanism,
> i am inetersting - what you mean by "more convenient and extensible
> datatype mechanism"? i also not fully satisfied by current one, even
> with hugs/ghc extensions, so i'm interested in thoughts about
> improvements in this area
Mostly the stuff that has been discussed recently. For example requiring 
unique field names across all datatypes, the lack of support for width and 
depth subtyping, mutually referencing datatypes are awkward to do without 
resorting to the ST and STRef monads (not standard), which introduces 
complications of its own, like have to introduce composition if you're "in" 
some other monad like IO. I know some of this is handled by T-Rex, but i 
would like to see it become standard


> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bulat                            mailto:bulatz at HotPOP.com 

More information about the Haskell mailing list