On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:49:13 PM UTC, Rupert Smith wrote: > > This would seem to make extensible records a lot less useful than they > could be. Is this one of those cases where an existential qualifier would > be needed to specify the type of the function? Or is this in fact a case > that could be typed in Elm without problem and that the type checker should > accept? >
Or to put it another way, is this a case that could type check just fine and not lead to a runtime error in the program, but is not allowed because it would break the type inference algorithm? If it can both type check and infer, then it should be allowed. -- 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.
