Overloaded record fields

Stephen Paul Weber singpolyma at singpolyma.net
Thu Jun 27 16:39:06 CEST 2013

Somebody claiming to be Dominique Devriese wrote:
>I would prefer to have dot notation for a
>general, very tightly-binding reverse application, and the type of the record
>selector for a field f changed to "forall r t. r { f :: t } => r -> t"
>instead of
>"SomeRecordType -> t".  Such a general reverse application dot would
>allow things like "string.toUpper"

If that's even possible, then we do not need the `.` at all, and can just 
use perfectly normal function application.

If people want to create YetAnotherFunctionApplicationOperator, we can't 
stop them, but no reason to include one (especially that overlaps with an 
existing, more useful, operator)

Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20130627/a047bccd/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list