Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #366: DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access, Shepherd: Tom Harding

I have no strong opinion about this proposal, although removing code is always good. I find the argument about pattern synonyms convincing, however. And the idea of using `RecordDotSyntax` and type classes to sort type-oriented disambiguation out is certainly appealing. So take my vote as a soft yes. /Arnaud On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 5:09 PM Eric Seidel wrote:

I agree that the current behavior is often unintuitive and would be better supported by RecordDotSyntax.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020, at 10:27, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee wrote:

...

As I say on the discussion thread, I’m strongly in favour.

Simon

*From:* ghc-steering-committee *On Behalf Of *Tom Harding *Sent:* 04 November 2020 15:22 *To:* ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #366: DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access, Shepherd: Tom Harding

Hi all,

I’d like to open committee discussion for *DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access*. Other committee members have already commented, and I’ll say I’m strongly in favour of this proposal. I definitely see the suggestion here as “tidying up” an unintuitive - perhaps even counterintuitive - behaviour.

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/366 <

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F366&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C943716dad34746aa01dd08d880d57d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637401003095757046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8T%2FxKBAkwtJgmCeg0%2BIr8IuOURniTXvGd%2F7%2FbIgbcGg%3D&reserved=0>

...

Thanks,

Tom

PS. Sorry for my recent absence; I think it has been a very strange few months for all us!

...

On 2 Nov 2020, at 09:08, Joachim Breitner

wrote:

...

...

Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access was proposed by Adam Gundry https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/366 <

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F366&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C943716dad34746aa01dd08d880d57d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637401003095767043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=O7yXaTttgOLAEC36SQF%2FK9INxrBxiUazko6iEDZOMqo%3D&reserved=0

...

https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/no-ambiguous-selectors/prop...

...

I’ll propose Tom Harding as the shepherd.

Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process

Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org

https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee