At a minimum I think the error message should be better.
I also think it would be natural to use the DisambiguateRecordFields
for the places where RecordWildcards are used.
I mean, if I change from unqualified import to a qualified one, and
then change all visible names to be qualified I would expect things to
still work.
For RecordPuns I don't have an opinion on what to do.
-- Lennart
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones<simo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Oh, now I get it, thanks. This message concerns design choices for
> record-syntax-related GHC extensions. Lennart, pls tune in. You don’t need
> to have read the thread to understand this message.
>
> | I think that Even refers to an example like this:
> |
> | module A where
> | data A = A { a :: Int }
> |
> | The following works:
> |
> | {-# LANGUAGE NamedFieldPuns #-}
> | module B where
> | import A
> | f (A { a }) = a
> |
> | However, if we import "A" qualified, then punning does not seem to work:
> |
> | {-# LANGUAGE NamedFieldPuns #-}
> | module B where
> | import qualified A
> | f (A.A { a }) = a
> |
> | This results in: Not in scope: `a'
>
> Right. What is happening is that GHC looks up the first 'a' (the one on the
> LHS) and finds it not in scope. If you add -XDisambiguateRecordFields, it
> works fine. But admittedly, the error message is unhelpful. I could improve
> that.
>
> Now on to the suggested change:
>
> | {-# LANGUAGE NamedFieldPuns #-}
> | module B where
> | import qualified A
> |
> | f (A.A { A.a }) = a
> |
> | This results in: Qualified variable in pattern: A.a
> |
> | Even is suggesting that instead of reporting an error, in the second
> | case we could use the translation:
> |
> | f (A.A { A.a }) = a --> f (A.A { A.a = a })
> |
> | (i.e., when punning occurs with a qualified name, use just the
> | unqualified part of the name in the pattern)
>
> Yes, that'd be possible. But it seems debatable -- it doesn't *look* as if
> the pattern (A.A { A.a }) binds 'a' -- and it seems even less desirable in
> record construction and update. To be concrete, would you expect these to
> work too?
>
> g a = A.A { A.a } --> g a = A.A { A.a = a }
> h x a = x { A.a } --> h x a = a { A.a = a }
>
> In these cases, I think the abbreviated code looks too confusing.
>
> With -XDisambiguateRecordFields you could say
>
> g a = A.A { a }
>
> which seems better. (But there's no help for record update, since we don’t
> know which data constructor is involved.)
>
>
> So my current conclusion is: improve the error message, perhaps suggesting
> the flag -XDismabiguateRecordFields, but don't add the change you suggest.
>
> Comments?
>
> Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
