<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 6, 2008 12:19 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones <<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div lang="EN-GB" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<div style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<div>
<div class="Ih2E3d">
<div>
<p>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).</p>
</div></div>
<div>
<p><span style="COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">You do know about: <a href="http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#disambiguate-fields" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#disambiguate-fields</a></span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">don't you?</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I did not! This is great and takes care of my immediate concerns. </div>
<div>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.</div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sebastian Sylvan<br>
+44(0)7857-300802<br>UIN: 44640862