AntC wrote:
> >
> > With syntaxless TDNR enabled, the last line could be:
> >
> > f b c = do { reset b; reset c }
> >
>
> Heck, I didn't think you meant something that radical.
> So bare name in a function application context is to need disambiguating.
>
> I think you'll find rather a lot of those in existing code.
> So this is a code-breaking change.
I don't understand your conclusion.
The code above, in context, is currently illegal: There are two "reset"
functions in scope, and the compiler will ask the programmer to specify
which of them they intended to use.
Jeremy's proposal, I believe, is that the compiler should pick /the/
possibility that type-checks (f had a type signature that would allow
only one combination to work); . Note that this has nothing to do with
record fields at all, except that they give rise to a compelling use
case.
(I'm not endorsing the proposal, just trying to clarify what it is.)
Cheers,
Bertram
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
