StricterLabelledFieldSyntax

[Sean Leather]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
> > > I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> > > syntax stricter
> > >
> >
> > I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling
> it
> > "stricter." Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't provoke the
> expected
> > image in this case. More like lower precedence.
>
> I'm happy with it being given a different name.
>

I don't know... I can't say I'm good at coming up with names.

To me, the syntax is not actually stricter, just that the precedence for
labeled field construction, update, & pattern is lower. What is the
effective new precedence with this change? Previously, it was 11 (or simply
"higher than 10"). Is it now equivalent to function application (10)?

> Would it be useful to add an example with the appropriate parentheses?
>
> I'm not sure I understand what sort of an example you want. Isn't
>    Just (A {x = 5})
> one?
>

I think an example should be added to the report itself with a mention of
the change from the previous edition. (Any reasonable example will do.)
Looking through the proposal's "Report Delta," I didn't see such a change,
though perhaps it escaped me.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/attachments/20090726/4d5a4ae6/attachment.html