[Haskell] ambiguous record field names which actually aren’t ambigious

[Wolfgang Jeltsch]

Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2007 18:46 schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
> | But wouldn’t it be worthwhile to allow this kind of stuff as a language
> | extension?  It would make life easier in a couple of situations.  I don’t
> | like the idea of using advanced record implemenations based on contended
> | language extensions (undecidable instances, etc.), thereby probably
> | loosing pattern matching, just to get rid of the need to qualify field
> | names. :-(
>
> By all means!  Make a feature request for GHC, as precisely stated as
> possible.

Done. :-) 

> (Better still, implement it.)

I might try if I find the time.  However, it would be the first time that I 
hack on GHC.  So could anyone give me some hints about at which places of the 
code I would have approximately to do what in order to implement this 
feature?

> Remember that you don't always get rid of the need to qualify field names,
> just in cases (a) and (b). 

Of course.

> S

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-bugs at haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs