#11805: Ability to use record fields for automatic derivation of user-defined classes. -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: Tientuine | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 7.10.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by Tientuine): I appreciate the prompt reply. I was not aware of the OverloadedRecordFields proposal (at least, not the third part). I had done a bit of research using the Wiki page on ExtensibleRecords as a starting point, but this proposal was not mentioned there. It seems that Parts 1 and 3 of OverloadedRecords together accomplish everything I was looking for (and more, of course) from my own proposal. By making a subclass of two HasField magic-classes, it would be easy to define a class like //Desc// from my example above, which comprises multiple fields and has a name that is lighter-weight and domain-specific. Obviously, it's a big win over my proposal that we would still be able to use the field-update syntax. Since I don't see any advantage of my proposal over the functionality provided by OverloadedRecordFields, I suppose this Ticket can be closed (unless someone else sees any value in it). Should I close it myself? Not sure about the protocol. I'm looking forward to the completed OverloadedRecordFields proposal! -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11805#comment:2 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler