Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jun 17, 2013 4:07:10 PM (10 months ago)
Author:
simonpj
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Records/OverloadedRecordFields/Plan

    v1 v2  
    6666 
    6767As currently drafted, this proposal advocates using a new operator `.>` rather than changing the meaning of the dot operator, for reasons of backward compatibility and avoidance of a whole host of tricky parsing issues. This could change, if it is felt that the benefits of mimicking other languages outweigh the drawbacks of breaking backwards compatibility. 
     68 
     69'''SLPJ'''.  I don't agree here.  Dot-notation is so convenient and so universal that I think we should use it.  And there isn't any ambiguity.  Dot notation is already space-aware: `M.x` is a qualified name whereas `M . x` is the composition of a data constructor `M` with a function `x`.  Similarly `r.x` can mean record selection, distinct from `r . x`. 
     70'''End of SLPJ'''. 
    6871 
    6972