Re: Should exhaustiveness testing be on by default?

Neil Mitchell wrote:

I'm not a particular fan of exhaustiveness checking. It just encourages people to write:

foo (Just 1) [x:xs] = important case foo _ _ = error "doh!"

So now when the program crashes, instead of getting a precise and guaranteed correct error message, I get "doh!" - not particularly helpful for debugging Is there some compile option to automatically annotate error call with its source code location (so that one dos not need to mention it in the string argument)?

Peter.