AntC wrote > I'm not seeing you're proposing anything that's significantly different > to DuplicateRecordFields. That has the advantage we can use it now. > > If you are proposing something different, you need to explain > in a lot more detail, so that we can see the advantages. > > So [ref Evan] even though a field name is a first-class function usually, > DuplicateRecordFields only gets triggered where you use the bare name. > > [Ref Peter] I'm not seeing why you're talking about two passes, > but that does not sound like a robust approach. > (Can you be sure two passes is enough? > If it is enough, why can't the second pass's logic > get built into the first?)
DRF only works for records, but brings polymorphism, duplicate definitions in the same module, and other goodies. This proposal will work for any function, but only helps with disambiguation. There is some overlap, but it is a different solution for different requirements. -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/TDNR-without-new-operators-or-syntax-changes-tp5835927p5836818.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://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
