I was assuming the mechanism used for records with a certain field (types
like `{ a | field : t }` could be reused here, but maybe the internal
storage of records and tuples is divergent.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-5, Max Goldstein wrote:
>
> This solution would require some not-currently-in-place polymorphism since
> .0 can access the first field in tuples of many sizes. That is, you'd need
> one signature that comprises all of:
>
> .0 : (a, b) -> a
> .0 : (a, b, c) -> a
> .0 : (a, b, c, d) -> a
> ... and so on
>
> It sounds like the third-party library should be using records; maybe you
> can ask them to change their API? I haven't seen many good uses of
> n-tuples, n > 2, recently.
>
>
>
--
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.
