[ghc-steering-committee] Record dot syntax: vote results

[Richard Eisenberg]

Small note: It sounds like we're getting ready to wrap this up with that post of Simon's on GitHub. Might I humbly suggest we wait one more day? Declaring the committee's vote today, April 1, might only sow confusion. :)

Richard

> On Apr 1, 2020, at 7:00 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 0:09, Iavor Diatchki (<iavor.diatchki at gmail.com <mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>>) escribió:
> Hello,
> 
>    - Indeed, you could write some expressions that might look confusing at first, but I don't see why would you?  After all, one could use the exact same argument for many other notations in pretty much any programming language (e.g., operator precedences can be used to write confusing code---it doesn't mean that they are not very useful sometime).
> 
> But I think it's important to think also of potentially confusing type errors which may arise if we allow such freedom. I find easier to simply say "f r .x" cannot be parsed, and then asking the user to disambiguate between "(f r).x" or "f r.x" than to allow it in the parser and then obtain a huge error message.
> 
> Part of the reason why I'm so concerned about it is that my prediction is that this is not "just" any other extension. Many people, including beginners, will enable this by default, since it makes one slightly alien part of Haskell (field access) look like what they might be used to.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20200401/fe54ea77/attachment.html>