Hmm yes. Fair enough. Does anyone care enough? I can see (now) that it wouldn't really be hard. | -----Original Message----- | From: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users- | bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Yitzchak Gale | Sent: 15 November 2011 11:16 | To: Malcolm Wallace | Cc: GHC-users List | Subject: Re: Why not allow empty record updates? | | Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | >> Trouble is, what type does this have? | >> f x = x {} | | Malcolm Wallace wrote: | > 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. | | Yes. The translation of record updates given in the Report | makes perfect sense for {}. It is only forbidden by | "n >= 1", but no reason is given for that restriction. | | According to that translation, the type of x {} is | the type of the case expression it translates to. | | Thanks, | Yitz | | _______________________________________________ | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list | Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users