There have been probably 15 different proposals for this throughout the years. They never make enough momentum to go through. While record pain points seem like a huge deal, in practice they're not sufficiently bad to motivate changes in the language in the face of the various tradeoffs that would have to be made.
Today, typeclasses and lenses cover 99% of "the record problem" as far as I've experienced.
Comments
Also bad setters ("record {field = val}" looks nice but useless, as not a function).
I hope the developers of GHC also clearly see the problem and someday will be engaged in it. Then the language becomes much more expressive.
Is that task exists somewhere in roadmap?
There have been probably 15 different proposals for this throughout the years. They never make enough momentum to go through. While record pain points seem like a huge deal, in practice they're not sufficiently bad to motivate changes in the language in the face of the various tradeoffs that would have to be made.
Today, typeclasses and lenses cover 99% of "the record problem" as far as I've experienced.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on ghc-devs about fixing records. The most promising approach seems to here:
http://nikita-volkov.github.io/record/