... | ... | @@ -140,3 +140,32 @@ Other FP languages where I looked for a record implementation but it appeared th |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find great specific information on record implementation ML variants. Best I can tell, SML does not allow records in the same module with the same field. Records from other modules require name-spacing or must be opened up similar to Agda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Problems with using the current module namespace mechanism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose I have 112 hand-crafted data types in my project (e.g. see attachment 51369.txt), this creates a lot of conflicts in field names and constructor names. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
```wiki
|
|
|
data Comment = Comment {
|
|
|
commentId :: CommentId
|
|
|
, commentContent :: Content
|
|
|
, commentReviewId :: ReviewId
|
|
|
, commentSubmissionId :: SubmissionId
|
|
|
, commentConferenceId :: ConferenceId
|
|
|
, commentDate :: ISODate
|
|
|
, commentReviewerNumber :: Int
|
|
|
} deriving (Show)
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a real type in my project. It has fields like “id”, “content”, “reviewId”, “submissionId”, “date”. There are seven other data types that have a field name “submissionId”. There are 15 with “conferenceId”. There are 7 with “content”. And so on. This is just to demonstrate that field clashes do occur a lot in a nontrivial project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also demonstrates that if you propose to put each of these 112 types into a separate module, you are having a laugh. I tried this around the 20 type mark and it was, apart from being very slow at compiling, very tedious to work with. Creating and editing these modules was a distracting and pointless chore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also demonstrated, to me, that qualified imports are horrible when used on a large scale. It happened all the time, that'd I'd import, say, 10 different data types all qualified. Typing map (Foo.id . BarMu?.thisField) and foo Bar.Zot{x=1,y=2} becomes tedious and distracting, especially having to add every type module when I want to use a type. And when records use other types in other modules, you have a lot of redundancy. With the prefixing paradigm I'd write fooId and barMuThisField, which is about as tedious but there is at least less . confusion and no need to make a load of modules and import lines. Perhaps local modules would solve half of this problem. Still have to write “Bar.mu bar” rather than “mu bar”, but it'd be an improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also have 21 Enum types which often conflict. I end up having to include the name of the type in the constructor, or rewording it awkwardly. I guess I should put these all in separate modules and import qualified, too. Tedious, though. At least in this case languages like C\# and Java also require that you type EnumName.EnumValue, so c‘est la vie. |