Hi all,
Is there a good reason why I can't say
data Bar = Bar { _ :: Int, _ :: Char, x :: Bool }
?
(Or "data Bar = Bar { Int, Char, x :: Bool }" if you prefer, but that's
susceptible to typos of the "x, y, z :: Int" syntax causing confusion).
I have a large datastructure in which there is one field I wish to be
able to use field reads and updates for, but I don't want to have to
invent loads of names for the other fields. The only minor issue I can
think of is that the derived Show instance would say
Bar{_=5,_='c',x=True}
but, while it's a bit odd, I don't think it's a problem.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
