[Haskell-cafe] type inference and named fields

[Christian Maeder]

Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Whereas in the named field example, the rhs expression
>     v {field1=Void}
> does indeed have the type
>     Fields Void
> as declared in the signature.  The expression explicitly converts all
> the relevant interior fields to Void.  At least, that is how it could
> appear to a naive programmer like me :-)

If v has a second field with the same type of field1, do you really
expect that field2 is silently casted to the new type of field1? (This
would be unsafe)

Christian