Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Ian Lynagh <ig...@earth.li> writes:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather than being
confusable with the binding level of function application, it /has/ the
binding level of function application. ie, instead of a{x=42} one would
have to write {x=42}a,
we already know which record type it is, because record fields don't
have disambiguation.
If it's (data D = D { x, y :: Int }) then (x :: D -> Int) and we would
have (({x=42}) :: D -> D).
Or (data E n = E1 { ex, ey :: n } | E2 { ey :: n } | E3 {ex :: n}), (ey
:: E n -> n), (({ex=42}) :: Num n => E n -> E n), but probably not ever
allowing to change (E n1 -> E n2) even if it changes both ex and ey.
I think it wouldn't be a terrible syntax, ({...}), kind of like infix
operators can be made into functions like (+). If you wanted to make a
proposal for such an extension.
-Isaac
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
