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