StricterLabelledFieldSyntax

[Ian Lynagh]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
> Dupree<ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
> > Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> 
> Not for me. I use the notation as is, and so my code would start
> generating warnings without any valid reason, I think.  What would
> such a warning warn against, anyway?

For context, I looked at the alsa package. All of the (roughly 10)
would-be-rejected cases looked like one of the two examples below. I
don't really have anything new to say: Some people think these are
clear, others find them confusing. Hopefully we'll find a consensus and
make a decision.


throwAlsa :: String -> Errno -> IO a
throwAlsa fun err = do d <- strerror err
                       throwDyn AlsaException
                         { exception_location = fun
                         , exception_description = d
                         , exception_code = err
                         }

  peek p      = do cl <- #{peek snd_seq_addr_t, client} p
                   po <- #{peek snd_seq_addr_t, port} p
                   return Addr { addr_client = cl, addr_port = po }


Thanks
Ian