{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihzppfemn5zb37jhtaxp2sdwsxye42s2cdrtico5du5ilkd7szohm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnw6kcvhcdy2"
  },
  "path": "/t/haskells-missing-mutable-reference-type/14248#post_12",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-10T05:47:56.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "tags": [
    "[RFC] Mutable records as a GHC extension"
  ],
  "textContent": "tomjaguarpaw:\n\n> It can grow dynamically.\n\nYes, but that would require a completely different implementation. No matter how you slice it these references will have to live in CPU cache, and a static table is the most compact solution to that.\n\nMuch like with [RFC] Mutable records as a GHC extension, I view a simple solution that fits the existing model as infinitely more preferable to both the status quo and the “dependent types are just a week away” line of approach.",
  "title": "Haskell's missing mutable reference type"
}