#12229: Narrow the scope of record wildcards notation slightly -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: simonpj | Owner: Type: bug | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1 Keywords: | Operating System: Unknown/Multiple Architecture: | Type of failure: None/Unknown Unknown/Multiple | Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: Differential Rev(s): | Wiki Page: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- As fallout from #12130 I narrowed the scope of record-wildcard notation slightly. Here's the commit {{{ commit 2f8cd14fe909a377b3e084a4f2ded83a0e6d44dd Author: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> Date: Thu Jun 23 09:02:00 2016 +0100 Narrow the use of record wildcards slightly In reviewing the fix to Trac #12130 I found the wild-card fill-in code for ".." notation in record constructions hard to understand. It went to great contortions (including the find_tycon code) to allow data T = C { x, y :: Int } f x = C { .. } to expand to f x = C { x = x, y = y } where 'y' is an /imported function/! That seems way over the top for what record wildcards are supposed to do. So I have narrowed the record-wildcard expansion to include only /locally-bound/ variables; i.e. not top level, and certainly not imported. I don't think anyone is using record wildcards in this bizarre way, so I don't expect any fallout. Even if there is, you can easily initialise fields with eponymous but imported values by hand. An intermediate position would be to allow /local/ top-level definitions. But I doubt anyone is doing that either. Let's see if there's any fallout. It's a local change, easy to revert, so I've just gone ahead to save everyone's time. }}} This ticket can be used for any commentary. I've also added a test. -- Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12229> GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> The Glasgow Haskell Compiler