Re: A possible alternative to dot notation for record access

Sure. I'd rather have nothing, but at least unlike the (.) proposals it doesn't break existing code. That said I don't think we need either. On Jul 1, 2013, at 2:27 AM, "John Wiegley" wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

Edward Kmett writes:

...

If you really want to hunt for unused syntax and we wind up needing a (.) analogue then (->) is currently a reserved operator, so opening it up for use at the term level could be made to work, and there is a precedent with c/c++ pointer dereferencing.

Imagine this possible code:

foo :: Maybe Foo -> Bar foo (fromMaybe def -> x) = \x -> case x of Foo x -> x->y->z

I think it might get a bit ugly to give it a 5th meaning.

-- John Wiegley FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting http://fpcomplete.com johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users