... | ... | @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ That is: the `r{ ... }` constraint is added by the desugarer (and will be furthe |
|
|
### Option Two: explicit record constraint
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
> \[Or perhaps the new `fieldLabel` declaration isn't needed. See a *very speculative* discussion at [Wilder aftererthought](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/c-ompare-sorf#the-string-type-parameter-to-has-,-and-scope-control) \]
|
|
|
> \[Or perhaps the new `fieldLabel` declaration isn't needed. See a *very speculative* discussion at [Wilder aftererthought](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/compare-sorf#the-string-type-parameter-to-has-,-and-scope-control) \]
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
> Declaring:
|
... | ... | @@ -456,4 +456,4 @@ See also the attached `DORF Prototype Importing 29Feb2012.lhs`, which selectivel |
|
|
Nothing so far suggests they should. (And there's obvious dangers in allowing it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But updating through virtual fields might need it. See [Virtual Record selectors](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/c-ompare-sorf#virtual-record-selectors). |
|
|
But updating through virtual fields might need it. See [Virtual Record selectors](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/compare-sorf#virtual-record-selectors). |