what about moving the record system to an addendum?
Malcolm.Wallace at cs.york.ac.uk
Tue Jul 7 06:57:46 EDT 2009
On 7 Jul 2009, at 02:28, John Meacham wrote:
> Haskell currently doesn't _have_ a record syntax (I think it was
> always a
> misnomer to call it that) it has 'labeled fields'. ...
> and a reworking of the standard to not refer to the current system
> as a
> 'record syntax' but rather a 'labeled fields' syntax.
I strongly agree with the latter. In fact, I was under the impression
that the Report already avoided the term "record syntax" completely,
but checking just now showed 6 distinct occurrences.
More information about the Libraries