On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
> Dupree 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 reall
Hello,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
Dupree wrote:
> Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> 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 Haskel
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
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 precedenc
Hello,
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
Sean Leather wrote:
To me, the syntax is not actually stricter, just that the precedence for
labeled field construction, update, & pattern is lower. What is the
effective new precedence with this change? Previously, it was 11 (or simply
"higher than 10"). Is it now equivalent to function applicat
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Ian Lynagh writes:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather than being
confusable with the binding level of func
>> I haven't seen anyone else claim to use the current more liberal
>> syntax for fields, but I know that I do rather extensively. I would
>> consider:
>>
>> Just A {a = 1}
>>
>> To be confusing, but if you simply omit the space:
>>
>> Just A{a = 1}
>>
>> I now find that perfectly clear and unambig
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anyone else claim to use the current more liberal
> syntax for fields, but I know that I do rather extensively. I would
> consider:
>
> Just A {a = 1}
>
> To be confusing, but if you simply omit the space:
>
> Jus
Hi
>> Would it be proper to create a counterproposal for this syntax?
>> ReversedLabelledFieldSyntax?
>
> I would claim that, of the existing Haskell code,
> StricterLabelledFieldSyntax only rejects unclear ("bad") code, and
> requiring it be changed (to be made clearer) is a good thing.
I haven'
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:46:41PM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
> > Would it be useful to add an example with the appropriate parentheses?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what sort of an example you want. Isn't
> >Just (A {x = 5})
> > one?
>
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
> > > I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> > > syntax stricter
> > >
> >
> > I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling
>
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:21:06AM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> Ian Lynagh writes:
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
>
> I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
> would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather th
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
> > I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> > syntax stricter
> >
>
> I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling it
> "stricter." Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't pro
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:45:18PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
>> syntax stricter, e.g. making this illegal:
>>
>> data A = A {x :: Int}
>>
>> y :: Maybe A
>> y = Just A {x = 5}
>>
>>
Ian Lynagh writes:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather than being
confusable with the binding level of function application, it /h
> I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> syntax stricter
>
I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling it
"stricter." Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't provoke the expected
image in this case. More like lower precedence.
Would i
16 matches
Mail list logo
