On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Gabriel Gonzalez wrote:
I'm guessing this is sarcastic, but I just want to clarify what I understood Henning's proposal to be. He's not saying we should provide an `o` function in the standard library, but rather encourage users to define their own.
Yes. I would be ok if packages provide this function, but I would urge programmers to import that explicitly.
This one liner would take the place of the current line that they devote right now to `OverloadedStrings` .
right
However, the analogy is still apt since the exact same line of reasoning applies to overloaded numeric literals where we currently rely on defaulting to solve this problem.
I always use -Wall and thus I am warned about when defaulting takes place. Thus I am confident that I do not rely on defaulting in my code.