2015-11-05 9:21 GMT+01:00 Jules Bean
The fact that it may conflict with previous, less natural syntax choices (lens composition with . comes to mind) should not be counted against an opt-in extension.
Lens composition with (.) is not really a syntax choice - Lens composition with (.) is simply function composition with (.) which is a fairly deeply-set Haskell choice. I can see arguments against using (.) for function composition but I don’t think anyone would seriously consider changing that now: and Lens composition will always have the same syntax as function composition.
It just so happens that Lens composition with (.) gives us the ability to write person^.job.title which is one of those nice coincidences which looks a bit like C-style object dereference.
This coincidence is nice because it approximates expectations from other languages. Unfortunately, this approximation breaks down quickly in only slightly more complex cases like `func person^.job.title`, "person^.someFuncProperty someArgument" and doesn't extend to writing `person.job.title`, leading (imho) to confusion and an unnatural feel. Also, I'm not sure why there's a "vote" about this now. As someone already mentioned, no community approval is needed to *first* implement it in some way (perhaps using ghc-reskin as suggested by someone), experiment with it and see if it makes as much sense as some of us expect. Regards, Dominique