Overloaded record fields

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/06/13 11:04, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> * Mateusz Kowalczyk <fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk> [2013-06-24
> 10:47:09+0100]
>> 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).
> 
> Roman
> 
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.

- -- 
Mateusz K.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=NRx3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----