And Merry Christmas to all.
I counsel against allowing reserved ids to be anything other than reserved ids. "...
is fraught with peril, unduly complicates the parser, and harms readability. " says a language implementer I asked.
But wanting to use field names dictated outside this language's control is a realistic requirement, for which there are several general approaches. The ghc proposal as it stands seems ad-hoc and very specific to one user organisation. Furthermore, this just ain't true:
> ...
SQL schemas. anyone working with those is stuck deciding between special-casing its naming, and consistently naming everything weirdly, ...
SQL consistently supports things like embedded spaces, fields starting upper-case [**], embedded dots or other graphics -- by no means just names that clash with reserved ids.
How does it do that? And this answer seems particularly relevant when these ids are going to feed into `HasField` constraints as a type-level String: put the id between quotes.
> orgNotification."type"
doesn't look too ugly to my eye. And to spj's repeated point: I could envisage allowing fields in `data` decls and record syntax to be quoted. (Again you couldn't use punning nor field-name as function.)
The approach is sufficiently general it could be extended to `#"Label naming"`.
[**] I'm particularly keen on field names starting upper case, because they're injective/part of the structure, like data constructors.
AntC
(Why am I posting to the cafe, not github? I seem to be blocked from posting on any topic, either on github or gitlab -- even for pages where I'm the sole author. I'd be grateful if somebody could post the above to the PR.)