Re: StricterLabelledFieldSyntax

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote:

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac Dupree wrote:

...

Iavor Diatchki wrote:

...

I am strongly against this change.  The record notation works just fine and has been doing so for a long time.  The notation is really not that confusing and, given how records work in Haskell, makes perfect sense (and the notation has nothing to do with the precedence of application because there are no applications involved).  In short, I am not sure what problem is addressed by this change, while a very real problem (backwards incompatibility) would be introduced. -Iavor

a different approach to things that look funny, has been to implement a warning message in GHC.  Would that be a good alternative?

Not for me. I use the notation as is, and so my code would start generating warnings without any valid reason, I think. What would such a warning warn against, anyway?

For context, I looked at the alsa package. All of the (roughly 10) would-be-rejected cases looked like one of the two examples below. I don't really have anything new to say: Some people think these are clear, others find them confusing. Hopefully we'll find a consensus and make a decision. throwAlsa :: String -> Errno -> IO a throwAlsa fun err = do d <- strerror err throwDyn AlsaException { exception_location = fun , exception_description = d , exception_code = err } peek p = do cl <- #{peek snd_seq_addr_t, client} p po <- #{peek snd_seq_addr_t, port} p return Addr { addr_client = cl, addr_port = po } Thanks Ian