The current syntax for record updates:
struct A {
a : int;
b : int;
}
let some_a = A { a : 10, b : 10 };
let other_a = A { a : 0 with some_a };
Sort of hints at being able to combine records of different types; because if
the type of other_a is guaranteed by the type of some_a, then the leading A
seems redundant. I'm not sure if this is actually desired behavior, but it
seems like the following should work:
struct B {
a : int;
b : int;
c : int;
}
let some_b = B { c : 10 with some_a };
Where B would have to contain all the fields of A. Or perhaps A would just have
to have all of the fields in B not specified in the record.
I know that there has been talk about dropping structural records in favor of
exclusively nominal ones (or perhaps this has already happened?). In a world of
only nominal records, I'm not sure if this is actually desired behavior, and
would actually think that not allowing this and using an alternate syntax for
record updates (similar to how Haskell does this) would be better:
let other_a2 = some_a { a : 0 };
But with structural records, the mixing seems to make sense (and you could even
see A { with some_b } as a way to drop the extra fields…).
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
