Changes between Version 24 and Version 25 of Records


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 30, 2011 9:56:15 AM (3 years ago)
Author:
GregWeber
Comment:

no wiki word

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Records

    v24 v25  
    6060 * '''Use the module name space mechanism'''; after all that's what it's for.  But putting each record definition in its own module is a bit heavyweight. So maybe we need local modules (just for name space control) and local import declarations.  Details are unclear. (This was proposed in 2008 in [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-August/046494.html this discussion] on the Haskell cafe mailing list and in #2551. - Yitz). 
    6161 
    62  Rather than strictly re-use modules it would make more sense to have a name-spacing construct that is shared between both records and modules - hopefully this would make implementation easier. Overall this seems to be more of an implementation detail that may have a side effect of making local modules easier to implement than a concrete design proposal relating to records - GregWeber. 
     62 Rather than strictly re-use modules it would make more sense to have a name-spacing construct that is shared between both records and modules - hopefully this would make implementation easier. Overall this seems to be more of an implementation detail that may have a side effect of making local modules easier to implement than a concrete design proposal relating to records. -- Greg Weber. 
    6363 
    6464'''Anyone who likes these designs, please help fill out a more detailed design discussion, either here or on another page'''. 
     
    7171One particular way of integrating this idea into Haskell is called [http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution Type Directed Name Resolution] (TDNR).  Proposed a couple of years ago, the Haskell community didn't like it much.  (But I still do; SLPJ.) 
    7272 
    73 I believe the community rejected TDNR because they wanted extensible records. I think it is a shame that the desire for *extensible* records is holding us back from getting anything done now, but I do think that the current TDNR proposal seems a little weak for some reasons pointed out in the proposal itself, but also because it proposes not to solve name-spacing record updates. Note that the Frege proposal incorporates the TDNR concept purely as sugar, and it has a solution for record updates (that hopefully somehow is easier than the original thoughts of TDNR update being difficult to implement). -- GregWeber 
     73I believe the community rejected TDNR because they wanted extensible records. I think it is a shame that the desire for *extensible* records is holding us back from getting anything done now, but I do think that the current TDNR proposal seems a little weak for some reasons pointed out in the proposal itself, but also because it proposes not to solve name-spacing record updates. Note that the Frege proposal incorporates the TDNR concept purely as sugar, and it has a solution for record updates (that hopefully somehow is easier than the original thoughts of TDNR update being difficult to implement). -- Greg Weber 
    7474 
    7575