25 Sep
2002
25 Sep
'02
9:58 a.m.
| The report says "The expression F {}, where F is a data constructor, is | legal whether or not F was declared with record syntax, provided F has no | strict fields: it denotes F _|_1 ... _|_n where n is the arity of F." | | It unclear to me why there needs to be this provision for records with | strict fields -- just let them be undefined -- but that notwithstanding, | GHC seems to do the wrong thing: I think the report is quite reasonable here.... if there is a strict field then F {} is unconditionally bottom, and you may as well write 'undefined'. Omitting the "provided F has no strict fields" is certainly defensible, but it's too late to change. I agree that GHC does not implement the clause... will fix. Simon