Records in Haskell
quuxity at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 02:58:51 CET 2011
You're right, i should have written "ambiguities" instead.
That was not joke, just i somehow didn't notice Chris Smith answer.
However, I think, there are some drawbacks in using dot for that in
comparison with qualified imports access. The latter is easier to
distinguish from composition by eye, because module-identifier is always one
word, starting from uppercase letter (which, moreover, in many editors is
highlighted differently). But in field access left operand is not always
atomic - it can be expression.
Consider this example:
quux (y . (foo >.< bar).baz (f . g)) moo
It's not that easy to distinguish from
quux (y . (foo >.< bar) . baz (f . g)) moo
Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote
> Certainly not no conflicts: lambda expressions.
View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Records-in-Haskell-tp4806095p5111428.html
Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users