On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Isaac Dupree wrote: You mean this wiki page, right?:
http://hackage.haskell.org/**trac/ghc/wiki/Records/**NameSpacinghttp://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/NameSpacing That is, there are no fundamental objections to the implementation of this records implementation. I think that might be overly optimistic... I think there's a risk that SPJ
finds an irritating complication to type inference & the rest of us aren't
type-system-savvy enough to continue trying to guess at that :) But I think
you're referring to whether we object to ad-hoc overloading of record field
names (neither parametric nor class-based polymorphism), if no difficulties
crop up. Some of the concerns on http://www.haskell.org/**haskellwiki/**
TypeDirectedNameResolutionhttp://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/TypeDirectedNameResolutionapply -- I'm not sure to what extent, but address those concerns rather
than require those people to repeat themselves again! :) (If we dodge all those obstacles, well, a better record system is better!) This shouldn't complicate type inference (other than the fact that we must
avoid a left-right bias?) because the record field names are not overloaded
- instead it puts some burden back on the user to add more type
annotations. The difficult aspect of TDNR was that it was assuming
overloading - although there is really no reason why it can't instead
assume name-spacing. TDNR and this record proposal share many of the same
syntax issues you list. Thanks for the detailed feedback! I am travelling
right now, will review when I get a chance.
Greg Weber