Re: thoughts on the record update problem

Since it is impossible for anyone to have read and kept in their mind all the discussion that has gone I will fill you in as I know it. We would like the syntax of record updates to be the same as they are today. That is separate from this proposal. This proposal is the only solution so far that works for updates with the desugaring hack and it requires a special form of type annotations instead of using the syntax we would like. Does that make sense? I take it that you agree that we should separate the discussion of semantics from implementation: this is a perfect example of why. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Chris Smith wrote:

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Greg Weber wrote:

...

The semantics that will be exposed to users have already been largely decide upon.

Admittedly I haven't had time to carefully read some parts of this thread, and if that claim is true, then of course implementation should be the major concern.  But it seems unlikely that claim is true, since in the very same email you express what looks like a pretty serious concern about the semantics that will be exposed to users (namely, the need for a new kind of type annotation).

-- Chris Smith