Hello Martijn,
Monday, September 28, 2009, 1:42:10 PM, you wrote:
Another nice
thing this suggests is the ability to use underscore as a pattern for
when you know the compiler will infer the type but it's too complex to
want to write out (e.g. while experimenting).
in case you not seen
Hello Wolfgang,
Monday, November 21, 2005, 1:30:10 PM, you wrote:
data Coord { x, y :: Double }
data Point = Point {coord :: Coord, c :: Color }
because this allows a large number of procedures written to work with
Coord, to automatically work with Point. iy just a matter
Hello Keean,
Monday, November 21, 2005, 6:56:06 PM, you wrote:
KS So you can do this now... with reasonable syntax, for example to
KS create an extensible record
KS (some thing .*. (27 :: Int) .*. True .*. HNil)
KS is a statically typed anonymous record.
it is not record, but
On Saturday 19 November 2005 17:35, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello David,
Saturday, November 19, 2005, 4:57:09 PM, you wrote:
DR I'd benefit from just a list of problems that the record
proposals want to DR solve.
DR 1. The field namespace issue.
DR 2. Multi-constructor getters, ideally as
Hello Wolfgang,
Sunday, November 20, 2005, 6:21:05 PM, you wrote:
data Coord = { x,y :: Double }
data Point : Coord = { c :: Color }
WJ A point is not a special coordinate pair. Instead it has a coordinate paar
as
WJ one of its properties. So the above-mentioned problem would be better
Hello David,
Saturday, November 19, 2005, 4:57:09 PM, you wrote:
DR I'd benefit from just a list of problems that the record proposals want to
DR solve.
DR 1. The field namespace issue.
DR 2. Multi-constructor getters, ideally as a function.
DR 3. Safe getters for multi-constructor data types.
