On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field syntax stricter
I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling it "stricter." Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't provoke the expected image in this case. More like lower precedence.
I'm happy with it being given a different name.
I don't know... I can't say I'm good at coming up with names. To me, the syntax is not actually stricter, just that the precedence for labeled field construction, update, & pattern is lower. What is the effective new precedence with this change? Previously, it was 11 (or simply "higher than 10"). Is it now equivalent to function application (10)?
Would it be useful to add an example with the appropriate parentheses?
I'm not sure I understand what sort of an example you want. Isn't Just (A {x = 5}) one?
I think an example should be added to the report itself with a mention of the change from the previous edition. (Any reasonable example will do.) Looking through the proposal's "Report Delta," I didn't see such a change, though perhaps it escaped me. Sean