#5972: option to suppress (Monomorphic) record selector functions -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: AntC | Owner: Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: records 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 AntC): Thank you Adam for the implementation detail. Remember: * This ticket was raised 4+ years ago (strewth!) when there were huge debates raging about the "Records problem" and a great deal of nothing had been achieved. (It was even before PolyKinds and type-level Strings IIRC.) I wanted to free up some of the design space. * I am not an implementor, so what the ticket requests is in terms of an end-programmer's view. * My remarks just above (and back then) re field labels vs selectors are in terms of the language report [section 3.15] "[Field] Selectors are top level bindings ... This [name] shadowing only affects selector functions; in record construction (Section 3.15.2) and update (Section 3.15.3), field labels cannot be confused with ordinary variables."
When I read this ticket I didn't imagine that enabling this flag would allow duplicate field labels, ...
No that wasn't the aim. I was merely aiming to avoid gobbling up the name space. DuplicateRecordFields is a different way to avoid it.
... just suppress the generation of the field accessors.
Anyway, this ticket was instructive because it showed how tightly intertwined the implementation is.
Yes. Isn't it! I rather wish I hadn't found that out. We still seem a long way from a decent records system. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5972#comment:17 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler