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

Simon

From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org> 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

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 <mail@joachim-breitner.de> 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://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/no-ambiguous-selectors/proposals/0000-no-ambiguous-field-access.rst

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