StricterLabelledFieldSyntax

[Isaac Dupree]

Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> Hello,
> I am strongly against this change.  The record notation works just
> fine and has been doing so for a long time.  The notation is really
> not that confusing and, given how records work in Haskell, makes
> perfect sense (and the notation has nothing to do with the precedence
> of application because there are no applications involved).  In short,
> I am not sure what problem is addressed by this change, while a very
> real problem (backwards incompatibility) would be introduced.
> -Iavor

a different approach to things that look funny, has been to implement a 
warning message in GHC.  Would that be a good alternative?

-Isaac