Changes between Version 63 and Version 64 of Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Implementation


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Sep 4, 2013 3:44:04 PM (2 years ago)
Author:
adamgundry
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Implementation

    v63 v64  
    240240
    241241
    242 == Outstanding bugs ==
    243 
    244 * typechecker/should_fail/tcfail102 (changed error message)
    245 
    246 
    247242== To do ==
    248243
    249 * Add `HsVarOut RdrName id` instead of `HsSingleRecFld` (or perhaps rename `HsVar` to `HsVarIn`)? This would also be useful to recall how the user referred to something.
    250 
    251 * Haddock omits fields from HTML index and prints selector names in LaTeX exports list.
     244* Add `HsVarOut RdrName id` instead of `HsSingleRecFld` (or perhaps rename `HsVar` to `HsVarIn`)?
     245  * This would also be useful to recall how the user referred to something.
     246
     247* Haddock omits fields from HTML index and prints selector names in LaTeX exports list and Hoogle output.
    252248
    253249* When there is only one thing in scope, what should we do? See [wiki:Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan#Scopeissuesorwhywemissdot discussion here].
    254250* Is the story about `-fwarn-unused-binds` okay?
    255251* Is `TcInstDcls.tcFldInsts` correct in its use of `simplifyTop` and assuming there will be no `ev_binds`?
     252* Is it worth generating all the derived names early, to get rid of `tcg_dfun_n`?
    256253
    257254* Consider syntactic sugar for `Upd` constraints.
     
    260257
    261258* Document the extension.
     259* Tidy up code, comment, remove unused imports.