Records in Haskell

[Matthew Farkas-Dyck]

On 30/12/2011, Andriy Polischuk <quuxity at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right, i should have written "ambiguities" instead.
> That was not joke, just i somehow didn't notice Chris Smith answer.

Hm. I though at first that if backslash were the selection operator,
then there must be programs of unclear semantics, but actually I can't
find any.

I'm sorry if my earlier message seemed unkind, by the way; it wasn't
meant to be.

> 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

Yeah, that's why I dislike dot as compose operator (^_~)

>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>

Backslash is a possibility then, it seems, but in my opinion breaks
the principle of least surprise, i.e. "I can't believe it's not
lambda!"

Cheers,
Matthew Farkas-Dyck