[Haskell-cafe] Conflicting bindings legal?!

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 26.02.2013, 10:25 +0100 schrieb Andreas Abel:
> 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.

in more imperative looking Haskell code, I find it useful to shadow a
previous binding by a new "foo <-" binding... People who do not like
that should use -Wall (or a more specific flag like
-fwarn-name-shadowing).

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata at debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20130226/9a9a97a0/attachment.pgp>