Both solutions are valid (I'm actually using both depending on the
situation) but my main question is why is there such a limitation? Reserved
keywords could (should?) depend on the context. You cannot define a real
port inside a record, you just want a string to name a property.
For example, in JavaScript, you can create an object with any property you
want, including reserved keywords, because, at the end of the day, it's
just string names. Some old browsers required to wrap the key inside quotes
so I would be fine with writing { "port" = 80 } in Elm if that would solve
the problem.
Le jeudi 15 décembre 2016 16:20:25 UTC+1, Paul Dijou a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I understand that "port" is a reserved keyword when writing Elm code but
> is there a reason to fail compilation when used as the name of a record
> field? It's a bummer when sending records through a port (a real one) and
> the JavaScript is expecting the property "port" (in the record).
>
> Thanks
>
--
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.
