On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:21:00AM +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >
> > >
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
> > >
> >
> > In general, I think i
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:25:12PM -0700, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> johan.tibell:
> >
> > In general, I think it would be a good idea to provide some statistics of
> > how
> > many packages would break as the result of a backwards incompatible change.
>
> Agreed. And it should be required as
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:21:00AM +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
> >
>
> In general, I think it would be a good idea to provide some statistics of
> how many pac
johan.tibell:
>
> In general, I think it would be a good idea to provide some statistics of how
> many packages would break as the result of a backwards incompatible change.
> Without that data I find it hard to do a cost-benefit analysis. So I hereby
> suggest that we make a recompile of Hackage
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> syntax stricter, e.g. making this illegal:
>
>data A = A {x :: Int}
>
>y :: Maybe A
>y = Just A {x = 5}
>
> and requiring this instead:
>
>data A =
