Excellent work Ross !
On Feb 12, 6:49 am, Ross Mellgren dri...@gmail.com wrote:
I just committed a change to lift-record in 2.0-SNAPSHOT that will possibly
(probably?) break your build if you use it.
This change makes it possible to have any record field be optional -- that
is,
What is the advantage of doing it this way as opposed to having a
collection of Field types who's value is a Box[Whatever]
(OptionalStringField, OptionalLongField, etc).
I'm finding the e-mail you sent to the list moderately confusing.
Maybe it's just that more explanation is needed?
-harryh
On
Originally I had implemented this like you suggest, with separate field types.
Marius reviewed it and preferred it to be baked into the basic field type.
The advantages over that method are:
- Not requiring 2x the number of field types everywhere. For example any
record implementation that
