On 14 Nov 2011, at 22:09, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Trouble is, what type does this have?
>
> f x = x {}
f :: a -> a
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.
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
