Correction: what I should have written is:
{ model | primaryForecast.parameters.q = ... }
instead of
{ model | model.primaryForecast.parameters.q = ... }
because the former is more consistent with the notion that the field
between the | and the = must exist inside the record to the left of the |,
which one of the requirements of the the current syntax.
Again. Wishful.
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:44:25 PM UTC-4, Ambrose Laing wrote:
>
> When you say
>
> { model.primaryForecast.parameters | q = ... }
>
> it seems to me that the type of the argument to the left of the '|' is of
> the same type as model.primaryForecast.parameters, so to me,
> this means something whose type and value is the same as
> model.primaryForecast.parameters, except that q has been changed.
>
> My suggestion:
>
> { model | model.primaryForecast.parameters.q = ... }
>
> makes it clearer, I think, that what you want is of type the same as
> model, but for which the sub sub sub field called q is changed.
> At least that is what I meant, if I didn't mention that.
>
> Then if I want something whose type is the same as a primaryForecast, but
> whose q value has changed, one could write:
>
> { model.primaryForecast | parameters.q = ... }
>
> And if I want something of same type as model.primaryForecast.parameters,
> but with q changed, one could write:
>
> { model.primaryForecast.parameters | q = ... }
>
> Anyway, this remains wishful, ... I am yet to grok the appeal of lenses.
>
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 12:34:24 PM UTC-4, Robin Heggelund Hansen
> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know, there is nothing against such a syntax, though I think
>> the preferred syntax would be `{ model.primaryForecast.parameters | q =
>> ...}`
>> It just haven't been implemented yet.
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
