Neil Mitchell
Hi
Would it be proper to create a counterproposal for this syntax? ReversedLabelledFieldSyntax?
I would claim that, of the existing Haskell code, StricterLabelledFieldSyntax only rejects unclear ("bad") code, and requiring it be changed (to be made clearer) is a good thing.
I haven't seen anyone else claim to use the current more liberal syntax for fields, but I know that I do rather extensively. I would consider:
Just A {a = 1}
To be confusing, but if you simply omit the space:
Just A{a = 1}
I now find that perfectly clear and unambiguous. I realise this isn't necessarily a discussion of the merits of the feature, but I don't consider this removal as clear cut as some people are suggesting.
for what it's worth, I do take advantage of the current syntax for functions with default parameters: f defaults{some_option = non_default_value} and like you, I don't put a space. I've long thought that compilers should issue warnings for layout that conflicts with precedence -- everyone knows that 2+2 * 8 means 2 + (2*8), but I'd guess it takes a /tiny/ bit longer to read correctly, and for less familiar operators the misleading layout is more likely a source of misreadings. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk