You're right, i should have written "ambiguities" instead. That was not joke, just i somehow didn't notice Chris Smith answer.
However, I think, there are some drawbacks in using dot for that in comparison with qualified imports access. The latter is easier to distinguish from composition by eye, because module-identifier is always one word, starting from uppercase letter (which, moreover, in many editors is highlighted differently). But in field access left operand is not always atomic - it can be expression. Consider this example: quux (y . (foo >.< bar).baz (f . g)) moo It's not that easy to distinguish from quux (y . (foo >.< bar) . baz (f . g)) moo Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote > > Certainly not no conflicts: lambda expressions. > -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Records-in-Haskell-tp4806095p5111428.html Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
