On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Qualifier: my original dislike for record field names had to do with name >> space pollution. But if they are only valid inside record constructors that >> would mitigate a lot of my dislike for them. There's still an issue in my >> mind about Records vs. Maps, which I'll come to in a separate email. >> >> > I'm confused by this. If field-names are only admitted inside record > constructors, how does one refer to fields outside of the record > constructor? > Given an object r of record type R, a field fld is accessible as r.fld. The part that has always left me queasy is the promotion of fld into the global namespace for construction purposes. I now understand that this is limited to the context of record constructors, but it still violates my sense of taste about such things. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
