TDNR without new operators or syntax changes
anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz
Fri May 20 01:00:21 UTC 2016
> Jeremy <voldermort <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> > AntC wrote
> > I think you'll find rather a lot of those in existing code.
> > So this is a code-breaking change.
> Could you give an example of existing code that would break?
> This certainly wasn't what I had in mind.
Then what do you have in mind?
"Do not break existing code" is not a design.
"Syntaxless TDNR" is not a design;
it's not even a thing.
I've given you two lengthy replies,
with pointers to further material.
You've given me two sentences,
and a snippet of code indistinguishable
from gazillions of bare name function calls
in existing code.
I urge you (for the third time)
to look at ORF Part 1: Duplicate Record Fields.
See the type-directed resolution of label names.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users