On Feb 6, 2008 12:19 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:

So to clarify that statement. Honestly the number one problem I have with the current records system is that labels share the same namespace. This makes interfacing with any C library using structs quite painful. This is why I say that I don't really care which gets implemented. The current system is *painful* IMO, so anything which improves on it would be welcome (even if just puts the record accessors in a per-record namespace, where with syntactic sugar to avoid having to qualify it).

You do know about: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#disambiguate-fields

don't you?

I did not! This is great and takes care of my immediate concerns.

I do still think that all that other stuff is worthwhile, particularly I like the low overhead of using tuples, and wouldn't mind if records were similarly convenient.