Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread John Wiegley
> Edward Kmett writes: > If you really want to hunt for unused syntax and we wind up needing a (.) > analogue then (->) is currently a reserved operator, so opening it up for > use at the term level could be made to work, and there is a precedent with > c/c++ pointer dereferencing. Imagine t

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread Edward Kmett
If you really want to hunt for unused syntax and we wind up needing a (.) analogue then (->) is currently a reserved operator, so opening it up for use at the term level could be made to work, and there is a precedent with c/c++ pointer dereferencing. -Edward On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Edwar

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread Edward Kmett
(#) is a legal operator today and is used in a number of libraries. On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:38 PM, wrote: > As long as we're bikeshedding... > > Possibly '#' is unused syntax -- Erlang uses it for its records too, so we > wouldn't be pulling it out of thin air. E.g. "person#firstName" > > Tom

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread amindfv
As long as we're bikeshedding... Possibly '#' is unused syntax -- Erlang uses it for its records too, so we wouldn't be pulling it out of thin air. E.g. "person#firstName" Tom El Jun 30, 2013, a las 22:59, AntC escribió: >> Carter Schonwald gmail.com> writes: >> >> indeed, this relates / a

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread AntC
> Carter Schonwald gmail.com> writes: > > indeed, this relates / augments record puns syntax already in GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax- extns.html#record-puns. > Uh-oh. That documentation gives an example, and it exactly explains the weird type-level error

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread Ben Franksen
Judah Jacobson wrote: > I had a quick idea about record field syntax as specified in the GSoC > project plan: > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan > . > > Instead of "f.x" (to access field x of record f), maybe we could write > "f{x}" as the record select

Re: Overloaded record fields

2013-06-30 Thread AntC
> Malcolm Wallace me.com> writes: > > I believe Simon's point is that, if dot is special, we can infer the "Has" type above, even if the compiler is > not currently aware of any actual record types that contain a "foo" field. ... > > (For the record, I deeply dislike making dot special, ... S

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread Roman Cheplyaka
* Carter Schonwald [2013-06-30 03:26:22-0400] > Otoh, would there be any ambiguity wrt applying functions to blocks? > > eg > f = (+ 1) > h= f {let x = 7 in 3*x}, > would that trip up the syntax? This is not valid Haskell anyway (there's no such thing as "applying functions to blocks"). You can

Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread Carter Schonwald
indeed, this relates / augments record puns syntax already in GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#record-puns . Otoh, would there be any ambiguity wrt applying functions to blocks? eg f = (+ 1) h= f {let x = 7 in 3*x}, would that trip up the syntax?

A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

2013-06-30 Thread Judah Jacobson
Hi all, I had a quick idea about record field syntax as specified in the GSoC project plan: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan . Instead of "f.x" (to access field x of record f), maybe we could write "f{x}" as the record selection. That is, we'd reuse t