<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:<br>
> > I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field<br>
> > syntax stricter<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling it<br>
> "stricter." Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't provoke the expected<br>
> image in this case. More like lower precedence.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm happy with it being given a different name.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>I don't know... I can't say I'm good at coming up with names.<br><br>To me, the syntax is not actually stricter, just that the precedence for labeled field construction, update, & pattern is lower. What is the effective new precedence with this change? Previously, it was 11 (or simply "higher than 10"). Is it now equivalent to function application (10)?<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">> Would it be useful to add an example with the appropriate parentheses?<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not sure I understand what sort of an example you want. Isn't<br>
Just (A {x = 5})<br>
one?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think an example should be added to the report itself with a mention of the change from the previous edition. (Any reasonable example will do.) Looking through the proposal's "Report Delta," I didn't see such a change, though perhaps it escaped me.<br>
<br>Sean<br></div></div>