Why not allow empty record updates?

[Malcolm Wallace]

On 14 Nov 2011, at 22:09, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

> Trouble is, what type does this have?
> 
> 	f x = x {}

f :: a -> a

Empty record patterns {} are permitted, even for types that are not declared with named fields.  So I don't see why an empty record update should require the type to be declared with named fields either.

Regards,
    Malcolm