Am Freitag, 17. Februar 2006 11:16 schrieb Michael Hanus:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > Note that the Haskell community repeatedly said that the current Haskell
> > record system is broken and this very community is searching for a better
> > alternative. Maybe we shouldn't include something into Curry which is
> > "broken".
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Could you comment a bit more a provide
> a link to explain why the record system is broken?
Not very much at the moment, unfortunately. I'm far away from being an expert
on this topic. I just noticed from reading mails on several Haskell mailing
lists that many people seem to consider Haskell's current record system a
mess, and picked up some of their arguments. I will ask on the Haskell
Mailing List if there is a web page or so which describes the problems with
the current system in a compact form. Currently, I don't know of such a
resource.
> Do you have the uniqueness of selector names in mind?
This is one of the problems. Others are the non-extensibility of records and
the fact that labels aren't first-class, if I remember correctly.
> [...]
> > > One other mini-proposal: I like to include the definition
> > >
> > > x_ = let x free in x
> >
> > But because it's so obscure, it shouldn't be used, in my opinion.
>
> I mean the name is obscure for meaningful functions
> or pattern variables so that it is not used in existing programs.
> However, the name x_ is reasonable to denote an anonymous free
> variable. Or any better suggestion for a compact name?
I would never name a global variable x or something similar. In fact, I also
don't name any local variables x. I'm very much in favor of descriptive
names like "free" (which is a reserved word, unfortunately).
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
Best regards,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Fr Feb 17 2006 - 17:24:12 CET