Evan Laforge
writes:
> That's a good point, but even if not totally logical I think the
> automatic "Rec -> X" function is more important than the X meaning.
[...]
> It might be nice to do the same with update functions, but those
> aren't even generated automatically (anyone got a generics thin
Anthony Clayden
writes:
> (I know how you're always looking for things to take out of
> Haskell ...)
>
> I can see the ugliness of having a name with two
> incompatible types (especially in the same scope).
Granted.
> After all, the program text declares { f :: Int }, and in
> all uses of the fi
> (I know how you're always looking for things to take out of
> Haskell ...)
>
> I can see the ugliness of having a name with two
> incompatible types (especially in the same scope).
That's a good point, but even if not totally logical I think the
automatic "Rec -> X" function is more important th
>Isaac Dupree writes:
> On 02/24/10 13:40, Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
> > Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >> I have a feeling I'm in the minority, but I find record punning an ugly
> >> feature.
> >>
> >> Given
> >> data T = C { f :: Int }
> >> we implicitly get
> >> f :: T -> Int
> >> which punning shado
