Overloaded record fields
fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk
Mon Jun 24 12:05:02 CEST 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24/06/13 11:04, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> * Mateusz Kowalczyk <fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk> [2013-06-24
>> Restricting function composition to have spaces around it will
>> require changing a large amount of existing code if one is
>> willing to use it.
> I assume this semantics will be triggered only by an extension, so
> there'd be no need to change existing code.
>> While I personally would like the restriction because I hate
>> seeing people skimp out on whitespace around operators, there are
>> a lot of people with a different opinion than mine and I imagine
>> it'd be a great inconvenience to make them change their code if
>> they want to start using SORF.
> Well, if they *want* it, it's not unreasonable to require them to
> *pay* for it (in the form of adjusting their coding style).
Sure that it's unreasonable to have them change some of their code to
use new, cool features. I'm just questioning whether it's absolutely
necessary to do it by forcing restrictions on what is probably the
most commonly used operator in the whole language.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users