Is there any chance of seeing extensible records in GHC 6.10? There seems to be widespread agreement that the current situation is unacceptable, but the official GHC policy is that there are too many good ideas to choose from - so nothing gets done! I hence humble propose that http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/download/papers/scopedlabels.pdf be adapted to GHC. In my naivete, I assume that porting an existing implementation would be much easier than starting from scratch. Is this reasonable? N.B. I am aware that GHC has limited resources - many thanks to Simon & Simon and all other contributors either way.
6.10? I think that's a typo as the current version is 6.8.1. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying? Seth Kurtzberg Software Engineer Specializing in Security, Reliability, and the Hardware/Software Interface -----Original Message----- From: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Voldermort Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:24 PM To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org Subject: Extensible Records Is there any chance of seeing extensible records in GHC 6.10? There seems to be widespread agreement that the current situation is unacceptable, but the official GHC policy is that there are too many good ideas to choose from - so nothing gets done! I hence humble propose that http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/download/papers/scopedlabels.pdf be adapted to GHC. In my naivete, I assume that porting an existing implementation would be much easier than starting from scratch. Is this reasonable? N.B. I am aware that GHC has limited resources - many thanks to Simon & Simon and all other contributors either way. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:35:34PM -0500, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
6.10? I think that's a typo as the current version is 6.8.1. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?
6.8.1 is released, there is abolutely no way new features are going to enter a published version. Hence, 6.10. Stefan
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:35:34PM -0500, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
Is there any chance of seeing extensible records in GHC 6.10? There seems to be widespread agreement that the current situation is unacceptable, but the official GHC policy is that there are too many good ideas to choose from - so nothing gets done! I hence humble propose that http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/download/papers/scopedlabels.pdf be adapted to GHC. In my naivete, I assume that porting an existing implementation would be much easier than starting from scratch. Is this reasonable?
N.B. I am aware that GHC has limited resources - many thanks to Simon & Simon and all other contributors either way.
I second this request. Yes, I know you *could* do something in a library; but it's MUCH nicer as a built-in feature. Sadly. Stefan
I misread it as 6.1. Sorry about that. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan O'Rear [mailto:stefanor@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:55 PM To: Seth Kurtzberg Cc: 'Voldermort'; glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org Subject: Re: Extensible Records On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:35:34PM -0500, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
Is there any chance of seeing extensible records in GHC 6.10? There seems to be widespread agreement that the current situation is unacceptable, but the official GHC policy is that there are too many good ideas to choose from - so nothing gets done! I hence humble propose that http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/download/papers/scopedlabels.pdf be adapted to GHC. In my naivete, I assume that porting an existing implementation would be much easier than starting from scratch. Is this reasonable?
N.B. I am aware that GHC has limited resources - many thanks to Simon & Simon and all other contributors either way.
I second this request. Yes, I know you *could* do something in a library; but it's MUCH nicer as a built-in feature. Sadly. Stefan
I've entered a feature request for this on Trac http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1866
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:24:24PM +0000, Voldermort wrote:
I assume that porting an existing implementation would be much easier than starting from scratch.
I doubt this is true, but even if it is I would prefer to see features chosen based on their merits. (I'm not familiar with the various proposals, so I can't say anything about this one) Thanks Ian
participants (5)
-
Bulat Ziganshin -
Ian Lynagh -
Seth Kurtzberg -
Stefan O'Rear -
Voldermort