... | ... | @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ The syntax could use some other character than dot (hash \# has been suggested), |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note this proposal differs significantly from others for dot syntax, such as:
|
|
|
[ http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution](http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution) (TDNR)
|
|
|
[ http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DotOperator](http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DotOperator)
|
|
|
[http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution](http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution) (TDNR)
|
|
|
[http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DotOperator](http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Records/DotOperator)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dot notation can be used for any function, not just record fields (as with TDNR, but different to SORF). This supports pseudo- or virtual fields. The declaration:
|
... | ... | @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ If you really, really want a section: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has been lengthy discussion about the interaction of dot syntax and record/field selection -- see the thread starting:
|
|
|
[ http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-January/098899.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-January/098899.html)
|
|
|
[http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-January/098899.html](http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-January/098899.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for everybody's contributions, they've significantly tuned the proposal as it went along.
|
... | ... | |