[ghc-steering-committee] Modification to record dot syntax propsal

[Spiwack, Arnaud]

> I do think that  reusing the record update syntax for the overloaded
> monomorphic update is a mistake---it is not something I had noticed during
> our original discussion.
>

This is the one reason I can see for cutting this extension in smaller
pieces. But, then again, -XOverloadedRecordUpdate would be a fork-like
extension.

Generally, I'm not in favour in proposals which split extensions though: we
already have so many extensions. Are the reasons for this split strong
enough? I haven't had time to dig into the details.

I'm not sure that not having the design of the proposal quite finalised is
a good reason, extensions mutate in their first iterations, I don't think
that it's a problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20210226/d603792a/attachment.html>