TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

AntC anthony_clayden at
Sun May 29 00:42:19 UTC 2016

> Evan Laforge <qdunkan <at>> writes:
> That's why I was trying to emphasize "not an operator". 
> TDNR is complicated because ...

>> Peter voldermort writes:
>> A slightly more refined definition for disambiguation: ...

Hi Evan, Peter, (and even James),

I'm not seeing you're proposing anything that's significantly different
to DuplicateRecordFields. That has the advantage we can use it now.

If you are proposing something different, you need to explain
in a lot more detail, so that we can see the advantages.

So [ref Evan] even though a field name is a first-class function usually,
DuplicateRecordFields only gets triggered where you use the bare name.

[Ref Peter] I'm not seeing why you're talking about two passes,
but that does not sound like a robust approach.
(Can you be sure two passes is enough?
 If it is enough, why can't the second pass's logic
 get built into the first?)

Yes DuplicateRecordFIelds is a bit of a hack.
The proper solution (MagicTypeClasses) is still awaited.

Can you explain why GHC should depart from that plan?


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list