Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >> Trouble is, what type does this have? >> f x = x {}
Malcolm Wallace wrote: > Empty record patterns {} are permitted, even for types > that are not declared with named fields. > So I don't see why an empty record update should > require the type to be declared with named fields either. Yes. The translation of record updates given in the Report makes perfect sense for {}. It is only forbidden by "n >= 1", but no reason is given for that restriction. According to that translation, the type of x {} is the type of the case expression it translates to. Thanks, Yitz _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users