what about moving the record system to an addendum?

Isaac Dupree 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)
RecordWildCards, DisambiguateRecordFields

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 mailing list