Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2007 18:46 schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones: > | But wouldn’t it be worthwhile to allow this kind of stuff as a language > | extension? It would make life easier in a couple of situations. I don’t > | like the idea of using advanced record implemenations based on contended > | language extensions (undecidable instances, etc.), thereby probably > | loosing pattern matching, just to get rid of the need to qualify field > | names. :-( > > By all means! Make a feature request for GHC, as precisely stated as > possible.
Done. :-) > (Better still, implement it.) I might try if I find the time. However, it would be the first time that I hack on GHC. So could anyone give me some hints about at which places of the code I would have approximately to do what in order to implement this feature? > Remember that you don't always get rid of the need to qualify field names, > just in cases (a) and (b). Of course. > S Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
