Limber separators

[Kosyrev Serge]

Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> writes:
> Actually, thinking about it a little further... TupleSections is already
> opt-in, so this needn't conflict per se.

Isn't this dangerous, in how it now gives a trivial piece of code
two very different interpretations, in a plausibly unintentional way?

> {-# LANGUAGE TupleSections #-}
> (x, y, ) :: t -> (a, b, t)

> {-# LANGUAGE LaxCommas #-}
> (x, y, ) :: (a, b)

I understand that we have OverloadedStrings, viz:

> {-# LANGUAGE NoOverloadedStrings #-}
> "a" :: [Char]

> {-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
> "a" :: IsString a => a

and yet, the differences in this respect seems significant:

The unintentionality of change in interpretation effected by the
transition NoOverloadedStrings -> OverloadedStrings is implausible.

Whereas with the LaxCommas -> TupleSections transition I guess it would
be fair to say that it is plausible.

Moreover, OverloadedStrings doesn't disallow using string literals as
string literals, whereas LaxCommas and TupleSections are mutually
exclusive.

-- 
с уважениeм / respectfully,
Косырев Сергей