<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 5, 2008 11:08 AM, Barney Hilken <<a href="mailto:b.hilken@ntlworld.com">b.hilken@ntlworld.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>This sort of disagreement means that nothing gets done. After my<br>experience with the wiki page, I don't believe anything will get done<br>
until one of the core ghc developers makes some arbitrary decisions<br>and implements whatever they want to, which will then eventually<br>become part of the standard by default.<br>
<div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><font color="#888888"></font> </div></div></blockquote></div>
<div><br>This is the sort of situation where a "benign dictator" is needed. I have no strong feelings about which of all of these (all very good) proposals get implemented, but I do have a strong opinion that the lack of "proper" records is hurting Haskell quite a bit. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Any of them will do, just get it in there! I'm assuming that Simon {PJ,M} et al. won't make an obviously terrible choice, and GHC seems to be the de facto standard anyway, so if they just implemented something in GHC that would be good enough for me, and a shoe-in for a future standard.<br clear="all">
</div>
<div>On 05/02/2008, Cale Gibbard <<a href="mailto:cgibbard@gmail.com">cgibbard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>On 05/02/2008, Cale Gibbard <<a href="mailto:cgibbard@gmail.com">cgibbard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Personally, I think pt{x} for extracting the x field of pt seems not-so-unreasonable, and meshes<br>> well with the existing syntax for record updates.</div>
<div><br>I should clarify -- this is only if we can't somehow keep the existing<br>function syntax for record extraction.</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Only if they get a separate namespace for each record, rather than overlapping, which would probably be confusing as they would *look* like functions, but they wouldn't really be function... That said, I like the "record{field}" syntax. It's sort of like array accessors in C style languages, but follows the "flavour" of the rest of the record syntax. I like the dot better, though, but I agree that it's too overloaded as it is. </div>
<div><br>-- <br>Sebastian Sylvan<br>+44(0)7857-300802<br>UIN: 44640862 </div>