Re: TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

> Evan Laforge gmail.com> writes: > > That's why I was trying to emphasize "not an operator". > TDNR is complicated because ... >> Peter voldermort writes: >> A slightly more refined definition for disambiguation: ... Hi Evan, Peter, (and even James), I'm not seeing you're proposing anything

Re: TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:13 AM, AntC wrote: >> Evan Laforge gmail.com> writes: > >> ... what would happen if you tried to do records >> just like C structs? So e.g. a•b requires 'a' to be a record with a >> 'b' field, and is just one identifier, no functions

Re: TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

A slightly more refined definition for disambiguation: 1) If a type signature has been supplied for an ambiguous name, GHC will attempt to disambiguate with the type signature alone. 2) If the name is a function applied to an explicit argument, and the type of the argument can be inferred without

Re: TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

> Evan Laforge gmail.com> writes: > ... what would happen if you tried to do records > just like C structs? So e.g. a•b requires 'a' to be a record with a > 'b' field, and is just one identifier, no functions involved, and 'b' > is not a separate value. Hi Evan, um, that's the original TDNR

Re: TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

As long as were back on this topic again (sort of), and just to satisfy my curiousity, what would happen if you tried to do records just like C structs? So e.g. a•b requires 'a' to be a record with a 'b' field, and is just one identifier, no functions involved, and 'b' is not a separate value. I