I can't think of a use case where defining an intermediary type wouldn't solve the immediate issue; philosophically I dislike naming things which are unimportant.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-5, Aaron VonderHaar wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>> > 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
