... | ... | @@ -71,7 +71,10 @@ So we have decided to avoid the extensible record debate, but how can we have mu |
|
|
1. **[Type-Punning Declared Overloaded Record Fields](records/type-punning-declared-overloaded-record-fields) (TPDORF)**. In the DORF stable. (Plan B)
|
|
|
1. **[Explicit Classy Records](records/explicit-classy-records)**
|
|
|
1. **polymorphic extensible records with scoped labels** by Daan Leijen, [ (implemented in Elm)](http://elm-lang.org/blog/announce/version-0.7.elm) and in the DSL [ WaveScript](http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~rrnewton/wavescope/WaveScope_+_WaveScript/)
|
|
|
1. **Are there any other approaches?**
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **[ type-level strings for field access](http://nikita-volkov.github.io/record/)**`data Record2 (n1 :: Symbol) v1 (n2 :: Symbol) v2 = Record2 v1 v2`
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Are there any other approaches?**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The [OverloadedRecordFields](records/overloaded-record-fields) extension eventually implemented was based on SORF, but with some modifications based on feedback. Of course, this may not be the end of the story...
|
... | ... | |