labelled fields

[Hal Daume III]

...it's also not the same...for instance, in this new version you cannot
say:

> foo = bar { thing = Nothing }

which you could say given:

> data Foo = Foo String { thing :: Maybe String }

I'd guess that this is disallowed just for consistency.  I think it would
just be too many rules to keep track of something with a combination of
multiple named fields and multiple unnamed fields.

I don't know though...

You can always give them names like "_foo1" etc., in which case ghc
probably won't warn about them, as is the case with methods whose names
begin with underscores...

 - Hal

--
 Hal Daume III                                   | hdaume@isi.edu
 "Arrest this man, he talks in maths."           | www.isi.edu/~hdaume

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Steffen Mazanek wrote:

> Ok, I had missed something:
> I can write instead:
> 
> data Type = TCon String (Maybe String) ...
> 
> and declare a function lmtc 
> 
> lmtc (TCon _ x) = x
> ...
> 
> But why not allow syntactic sugar?
> 
> Sorry,
> Steffen
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steffen Mazanek - www.steffen-mazanek.de - GPG: 791F DCB3  
> 
> Haskell, that's where I just curry until fail, unwords 
> any error, drop all undefined, maybe break, otherwise
> in sequence span isControl and take max $, id: (d:[])
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell mailing list
> Haskell@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
>