Ian Lynagh igloo at
Sun Jul 26 07:53:48 EDT 2009

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:21:06AM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> Ian Lynagh <igloo at> writes:
> >
> I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
> would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather than being
> confusable with the binding level of function application, it /has/ the
> binding level of function application. ie, instead of a{x=42} one would
> have to write {x=42}a
> This would allow a future change [...]
> Would it be proper to create a counterproposal for this syntax?
> ReversedLabelledFieldSyntax?

I would claim that, of the existing Haskell code,
StricterLabelledFieldSyntax only rejects unclear ("bad") code, and
requiring it be changed (to be made clearer) is a good thing.

Your proposal would reject /all/ labelled field code, "good" and "bad"
alike. That's a much harder sell, especially without the "future change"
being fleshed out or agreed upon.

All just my opinion, of course! The only way to find out for sure is to
make the proposal and see what happens.


More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list