Changes between Version 7 and Version 8 of Records


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Sep 15, 2011 10:02:59 AM (3 years ago)
Author:
YitzGale
Comment:

Linked to previous discussion about local modules.

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Records

    v7 v8  
    4949 * Optionally use the type name.  So you could say `Record.a` or `RecordClash.a` rather than `a`, to specify which field selector you mean.  Apart from verbosity the difficulty here is that it's hard to know whether you are writing `<module-name>.f` or `<type-name>.f`.  That is, is `Record` the name of a type or of a module?  (Currently it legally could be both.) 
    5050 
    51  * 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. 
     51 * 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) 
    5252 
    5353'''Anyone who likes these designs, please fill out a detailed design, either here or on another page'''.