If you use lenses you can do this today with no real need to adulterate the
parser.
setL (l2 . l1) x rec
This goes one step further as it can be written point free so you don't even
have to give rec a name if you don't want to. ;)
-Edward
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Barney Hilken
All this talk about records got me thinking. I don't really like the current syntax for record update (because it looks too much like function application) but here is an extension to it which might be useful.
If you use nested records, many languages allow you to update the inner records directly, for example rect.bottomLeft.xCoord += 3. We could allow a similar thing in Haskell by extending the syntax like this:
fbind -> qvar = exp | qvar { fbind1 , ... , fbindn }
then
rec { l1 { l2 = x }}
would mean
rec { l1 = (l1 rec) { l2 = x }}
The advantage (apart from convenience) is that we don't have to repeat rec, which could be a complex expression.
Is this any use?
Barney.
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users