... | @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ |
... | @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The implementation has been prototyped in GHC 7.2.1, see
|
|
The implementation has been prototyped in GHC 7.2.1, see
|
|
[ http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-December/021298.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-December/021298.html), and SPJ's observations/possible improvements and caveats
|
|
[http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-December/021298.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-December/021298.html), and SPJ's observations/possible improvements and caveats
|
|
[ http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-January/021744.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-January/021744.html)
|
|
[http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-January/021744.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-January/021744.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A cut-down prototype is attached to this page. (The ugliest hacks removed.)
|
|
A cut-down prototype is attached to this page. (The ugliest hacks removed.)
|
... | @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ That is: the `r{ ... }` constraint is added by the desugarer (and will be furthe |
... | @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ That is: the `r{ ... }` constraint is added by the desugarer (and will be furthe |
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> (See discussion at [ http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-March/022061.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-March/022061.html) "My main complaint against DORF is that having to write fieldLabel declarations for every field you want to use is onerous.")
|
|
> (See discussion at [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-March/022061.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-March/022061.html) "My main complaint against DORF is that having to write fieldLabel declarations for every field you want to use is onerous.")
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
|
... | @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ Haskell's existing update syntax is desugarred to a call to `set`: |
... | @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ Haskell's existing update syntax is desugarred to a call to `set`: |
|
It is crucial to this proposal that we can implement a polymorphic field update function (`set`). There's a number of tricky requirements considered below.
|
|
It is crucial to this proposal that we can implement a polymorphic field update function (`set`). There's a number of tricky requirements considered below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In amongst the discussion of dot notation for field selection, there have been aspersions cast on Haskell's current record update syntax. [ http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-February/099314.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-February/099314.html)
|
|
In amongst the discussion of dot notation for field selection, there have been aspersions cast on Haskell's current record update syntax. [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-February/099314.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-February/099314.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we can support update as just a function, there's a chance we can then turn to the syntactic sugar. (For example, the application programmer can develop update idioms to suit their purpose, as just overloaded functions.)
|
|
If we can support update as just a function, there's a chance we can then turn to the syntactic sugar. (For example, the application programmer can develop update idioms to suit their purpose, as just overloaded functions.)
|
... | | ... | |