... | ... | @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ So we have decided to avoid the extensible record debate, but how can we have mu |
|
|
1. **[ Type Directed Name Resolution](http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution) (TDNR)**. Pure (Plan B), but without abstraction over fields of the same name.
|
|
|
1. **[Agda-derived Records](records/name-spacing) (ADR)** Pure (Plan A)
|
|
|
1. **[Frege-derived Records](records/name-spacing) (FDR)**. Uses (Plan A) + (Plan B).
|
|
|
1. **[Declared Overloaded Record Fields](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields) (DORF)**. Tweak to SORF. (Plan B)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Are there any other approaches?**
|
|
|
|
... | ... | @@ -61,6 +62,7 @@ So we have decided to avoid the extensible record debate, but how can we have mu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All records solutions are planning on using the dot operator for normal record field selection. We need to consider the [future usage of the dot, particularly as a function composition operator](records/dot-operator).
|
|
|
(DORF doesn't insist on dot notation: it's to be syntactic sugar for reverse function application.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Comparisons
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |