Bardur Arantsson
Actually, thinking about it a little further... TupleSections is already opt-in, so this needn't conflict per se.
Isn't this dangerous, in how it now gives a trivial piece of code two very different interpretations, in a plausibly unintentional way?
{-# LANGUAGE TupleSections #-} (x, y, ) :: t -> (a, b, t)
{-# LANGUAGE LaxCommas #-} (x, y, ) :: (a, b)
I understand that we have OverloadedStrings, viz:
{-# LANGUAGE NoOverloadedStrings #-} "a" :: [Char]
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-} "a" :: IsString a => a
and yet, the differences in this respect seems significant: The unintentionality of change in interpretation effected by the transition NoOverloadedStrings -> OverloadedStrings is implausible. Whereas with the LaxCommas -> TupleSections transition I guess it would be fair to say that it is plausible. Moreover, OverloadedStrings doesn't disallow using string literals as string literals, whereas LaxCommas and TupleSections are mutually exclusive. -- с уважениeм / respectfully, Косырев Сергей