> Evan Laforge gmail.com> writes:
>
> That's why I was trying to emphasize "not an operator".
> TDNR is complicated because ...
>> Peter voldermort writes:
>> A slightly more refined definition for disambiguation: ...
Hi Evan, Peter, (and even James),
I'm not seeing you're proposing anything t
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:13 AM, AntC wrote:
>> Evan Laforge gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ... what would happen if you tried to do records
>> just like C structs? So e.g. a•b requires 'a' to be a record with a
>> 'b' field, and is just one identifier, no functions involved, and 'b'
>> is not a separa
A slightly more refined definition for disambiguation:
1) If a type signature has been supplied for an ambiguous name, GHC will
attempt to disambiguate with the type signature alone.
2) If the name is a function applied to an explicit argument, and the type
of the argument can be inferred without
> Evan Laforge gmail.com> writes:
> ... what would happen if you tried to do records
> just like C structs? So e.g. a•b requires 'a' to be a record with a
> 'b' field, and is just one identifier, no functions involved, and 'b'
> is not a separate value.
Hi Evan, um, that's the original TDNR isn
