what about moving the record system to an addendum?
ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org
Tue Jul 7 10:08:08 EDT 2009
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> 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.
ah hah. Existing extension names:
NamedFieldPuns (was erroneously "RecordPuns" in GHC for a release)
this "extension" could be named NamedFields.
(then giving the lie to the above new names which maybe ought to be more
like FieldWildCards and DisambiguateNamedFields(DisambiguateFieldNames?))
Also there is "ExtensibleRecords" which I guess refers to Hugs' TRex?
More information about the Libraries