One reason `first` and `second` are only defined for 2-tuples is that it's usually a better choice to use records if you have more than a couple fields.
If defining a record type alias and giving names to you're fields doesn't work for your situation, can you give more details about why? On Dec 27, 2016 7:09 AM, "Mike MacDonald" <[email protected]> wrote: > On a somewhat regular basis, I end up needing to extract a single field > from a tuple provided from a third-party function. At the moment, I have to > write a boilerplate function just to pattern match it out. If I need the > second field of tuple of a different size, I need to write more boilerplate. > > Seeing as record filed names cannot start with digits, and the language > only allows up to Tuple9, it would be nice to have `.0` through `.8` as > accessors to the tuple. This is symmetric with record field access > "methods", and seems like a moderate ergonomic gain. > > Thoughts? > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
