On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac > Dupree<m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > > Iavor Diatchki wrote: > >> > >> I am strongly against this change. The record notation works just > >> fine and has been doing so for a long time. The notation is really > >> not that confusing and, given how records work in Haskell, makes > >> perfect sense (and the notation has nothing to do with the precedence > >> of application because there are no applications involved). In short, > >> I am not sure what problem is addressed by this change, while a very > >> real problem (backwards incompatibility) would be introduced. > >> -Iavor > > > > a different approach to things that look funny, has been to implement a > > warning message in GHC. Would that be a good alternative? > > Not for me. I use the notation as is, and so my code would start > generating warnings without any valid reason, I think. What would > such a warning warn against, anyway?
For context, I looked at the alsa package. All of the (roughly 10) would-be-rejected cases looked like one of the two examples below. I don't really have anything new to say: Some people think these are clear, others find them confusing. Hopefully we'll find a consensus and make a decision. throwAlsa :: String -> Errno -> IO a throwAlsa fun err = do d <- strerror err throwDyn AlsaException { exception_location = fun , exception_description = d , exception_code = err } peek p = do cl <- #{peek snd_seq_addr_t, client} p po <- #{peek snd_seq_addr_t, port} p return Addr { addr_client = cl, addr_port = po } Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime