Changes between Version 60 and Version 61 of Records

Timestamp:

02/26/12 11:52:36 (15 months ago)

Author:

GregWeber

Comment:

compare DORF

Records

@@ -67 +67 @@
 === Comparisons ===
 
-The benefit of abstracting over field names in Overloading is being able to write code that works against any Record with a given field. So I can have a function:
+
+The DORF proposal is a variant of SORF with similar goals. However, it only solves the narrow name-spacing issue within a module. If a record is imported into another module, it will still clash.
+
+DORF and SORF abstract over fields. The benefit of abstracting over field names is being able to write code that works against any Record with a given field. So I can have a function:
 
 {{{
@@ -82 +85 @@
     * the extra constraints complicated the type checker and did not play well with higher kinded type variables (at least in the code I had then, I do not claim that this is nessecarily so).
 
-Overloading without abstraction over fields may be able to avoid some of these potential downsides, and a judicious (no virtual fields, etc) implementation of either could look very similar to the programmer.
+SORF without abstraction over fields may be able to avoid some of these potential downsides, and a judicious (no virtual fields, etc) implementation of either could look very similar to the programmer.
+
+SORF has also been recognized as an approach to internal type resolution, whereas namespacing would require an internal SORF-like step or some other approach to avoid the need for lots of annotations.
+
 
 === Type directed name resolution ===
@@ -112 +118 @@
 Other FP languages where I looked for a record implementation but it appeared they have no solution for records with the same fields (my information could be wrong/out-dated) ocaml, oz. However, the O in OCaml is for objects, and objects have structural typing that supports abstraction over fields.
 
-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. 
+I couldn't find great specific information on record implementation ML variants other than SML#. 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.