[Haskell-cafe] Conflicting bindings legal?!

[Andreas Abel]

Luckily, {-# OPTIONS -fwarn-unused-binds #-} saves me from searching for 
the formal spec...

On 26.02.13 10:25 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:
> To your amusement, I found the following in the Agda source:
>
> abstractToConcreteCtx :: ToConcrete a c => Precedence -> a -> TCM c
> abstractToConcreteCtx ctx x = do
>    scope <- getScope
>    let scope' = scope { scopePrecedence = ctx }
>    return $ abstractToConcrete (makeEnv scope') x
>    where
>      scope = (currentScope defaultEnv) { scopePrecedence = ctx }
>
> I am surprised this is a legal form of shadowing.  To understand which
> definition of 'scope' shadows the other, I have to consult the formal
> definition of Haskell.
>
> But I studied computer science to *not* become a lawyer!!

-- 
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY

andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/