15 Nov
2011
15 Nov
'11
8:34 a.m.
On 14 Nov 2011, at 22:09, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Trouble is, what type does this have?
f x = x {}
f :: a -> a Empty record patterns {} are permitted, even for types that are not declared with named fields. So I don't see why an empty record update should require the type to be declared with named fields either. Regards, Malcolm