Re: Curry module system

From: Michael Hanus <mh_at_informatik.uni-kiel.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:16:18 +0100

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?
Do you have the uniqueness of selector names in mind?
Currently, we plan to provide only syntactic sugar for entities
which we usually implement by hand. Maybe we can avoid the
problems in Haskell by restricting the generality of the
record system. On the other hand, there seems no better alternative
up to now, so record syntax is better than nothing...

> > 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?

Best regards,

Michael

_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Fri Feb 17 2006 - 15:11:16 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Sep 20 2019 - 07:15:06 CEST