[Haskell-cafe] Records (was Re: [Haskell] Improvements to GHC)

Tomasz Zielonka tomasz.zielonka at gmail.com
Fri Nov 18 08:05:36 EST 2005

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:21:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> On 11/18/05, Tomasz Zielonka <tomasz.zielonka at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> > > Some people do use it more often than I do, but I find that in most
> > > cases except simple "pipelined" functions it only makes the code
> > > harder to read.
> >
> > But this case is quite important, isn't it?
> I'm not so sure it is, and you can almost always write it using ($)
> without too much trouble. I really only ever use (.) for pretty simple
> things like filter (not . null).

Try not to look as if you wanted to _remove_ the composition operator,
because that will make people angry (wrrrr...) :-)
We are talking about _renaming_ the composition, not removing it,

If you removed it from the Prelude, most people would write their own
versions, with different names, and we rather don't want that.

Anyway, is it realistic to expect that people will rewrite their
programs to use the new operator? I thought that the new version of
Haskell will be mostly downwards compatible with Hashell 98?

Best regards

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list