I really like Simon PJ's "proposal for records in Haskell". Some
reasons for this are:
- Anonymous record types. For example, an anonymous record type can
easily hold ad-hoc keyword arguments. (Oh, just noticed that said in
the document.)
- To quote the document, "We can express polymorphic update (a
standard awkward case) quite nicely". (If I'm not mistaken (please
tell me if so), OverloadedRecordFields proposal fails here.)
- Nice syntax (in my opinion).
Possible record member set syntax:
let x.k = value in x
Pros:
- No new syntax
- Least Surprise
Cons:
- Verbosity (especially such: (\ x -> let x.k = value in x))
On 20/10/2011, Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: Records in Haskell | | I have added my proposal to the wiki.The only downsides to it that I can see are:
Thanks to Barney for articulating a proposal for records in Haskell. Over various plane rides and ICFP chats I've worked out some more details. It's not as simple as I'd hoped.
I'm underwater with stuff at the moment but I did find the time to capture a summary here http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields
Please do correct errors, suggest solutions, or explore variants.
Simon
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
-- Matthew Farkas-Dyck