A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

Edward A Kmett ekmett at gmail.com
Mon Jul 1 15:24:31 CEST 2013

Sure. I'd rather have nothing, but at least unlike the (.) proposals it doesn't break existing code.

That said I don't think we need either.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 2:27 AM, "John Wiegley" <johnw at fpcomplete.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> writes:
>> If you really want to hunt for unused syntax and we wind up needing a (.)
>> analogue then (->) is currently a reserved operator, so opening it up for
>> use at the term level could be made to work, and there is a precedent with
>> c/c++ pointer dereferencing.
> Imagine this possible code:
>    foo :: Maybe Foo -> Bar
>    foo (fromMaybe def -> x) = \x -> case x of
>        Foo x -> x->y->z
> I think it might get a bit ugly to give it a 5th meaning.
> -- 
> John Wiegley
> FP Complete                         Haskell tools, training and consulting
> http://fpcomplete.com               johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list