Levi Greenspan wrote:
What's the status of the TDNR proposal [1]? Personally I think it is a
very good idea and I'd like to see it in Haskell'/GHC rather sooner
than later. Working around the limitations of the current record
system is one of my biggest pain points in Haskell and TDNR would be a
major improvement. Thus I wonder if someone is actively working on
this proposal?
The TDNR proposal really tries to do two separate things:
1. Record syntax for function application.
The proposal is to tread "x.f" or a variation thereof the same as "(f x)"
2. Type directed name lookup.
The proposal is to look up overloaded names based on the type of the first
function argument.
Why can't these be considered separately? Is there a good reason for not using
TDNR in normal function applications? The only argument I can think of (compared
to the record syntax) is that it would be a bigger change.
Twan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
