RE: [Haskell] ambiguous record field names which actually aren’t ambigious

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

| But wouldn’t it be worthwhile to allow this kind of stuff as a language
| extension?  It would make life easier in a couple of situations.  I don’t
| like the idea of using advanced record implemenations based on contended
| language extensions (undecidable instances, etc.), thereby probably loosing
| pattern matching, just to get rid of the need to qualify field names. :-(

By all means!  Make a feature request for GHC, as precisely stated as possible.  (Better still, implement it.)  Remember that you don't always get rid of the need to qualify field names, just in cases (a) and (b).

S
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-bugs at haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs