[ghc-steering-committee] Please review #366: DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access, Shepherd: Tom Harding

[Eric Seidel]

I agree that the current behavior is often unintuitive and would be better supported by RecordDotSyntax.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020, at 10:27, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee wrote:
>  
> As I say on the discussion thread, I’m strongly in favour.
> 
> 
> Simon
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* ghc-steering-committee 
> <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org> *On Behalf Of *Tom Harding
> *Sent:* 04 November 2020 15:22
> *To:* ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #366: 
> DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access, Shepherd: Tom 
> Harding
> 
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I’d like to open committee discussion for *DuplicateRecordFields 
> without ambiguous field access*. Other committee members have already 
> commented, and I’ll say I’m strongly in favour of this proposal. I 
> definitely see the suggestion here as “tidying up” an unintuitive - 
> perhaps even counterintuitive - behaviour. 
> 
>  
> 
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/366 
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F366&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C943716dad34746aa01dd08d880d57d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637401003095757046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8T%2FxKBAkwtJgmCeg0%2BIr8IuOURniTXvGd%2F7%2FbIgbcGg%3D&reserved=0> 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> PS. Sorry for my recent absence; I think it has been a very strange few 
> months for all us!
> 
> 
> 
> > On 2 Nov 2020, at 09:08, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Committee,
> > 
> > this is your secretary speaking:
> > 
> > DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access
> > was proposed by Adam Gundry
> > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/366 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F366&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C943716dad34746aa01dd08d880d57d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637401003095767043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=O7yXaTttgOLAEC36SQF%2FK9INxrBxiUazko6iEDZOMqo%3D&reserved=0>
> > https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/no-ambiguous-selectors/proposals/0000-no-ambiguous-field-access.rst
> > 
> > I’ll propose Tom Harding as the shepherd.
> > 
> > Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in 
> > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Joachim
> > -- 
> > Joachim Breitner
> >  mail at joachim-breitner.de
> >  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>