Overloaded record fields
fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk
Mon Jun 24 12:07:48 CEST 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24/06/13 11:05, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> 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.
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
That meant to say `that it's *not* unreasonable'.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users