I think that would be the case. Although, I'd imagine I'd be using
dictionaries in this situation once I get to the point of having "Maybe"
data in this particular example.
I am beginning to understand the value of flattening data structures in
this context.
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 12:01:01 PM UTC-7, Duane Johnson wrote:
>
> I like the syntax. It's intent is clear. However, correct me if I'm wrong,
> but it would only work for records of records, correct? No way to deal with
> a "Maybe Forecast", right?
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Ambrose Laing <akl...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Correction: what I should have written is:
>>
>> { model | primaryForecast.parameters.q = ... }
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> { model | model.primaryForecast.parameters.q = ... }
>>
>> because the former is more consistent with the notion that the field
>> between the | and the = must exist inside the record to the left of the |,
>> which one of the requirements of the the current syntax.
>>
>> Again. Wishful.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:44:25 PM UTC-4, Ambrose Laing wrote:
>>>
>>> When you say
>>>
>>> { model.primaryForecast.parameters | q = ... }
>>>
>>> it seems to me that the type of the argument to the left of the '|' is
>>> of the same type as model.primaryForecast.parameters, so to me,
>>> this means something whose type and value is the same as
>>> model.primaryForecast.parameters, except that q has been changed.
>>>
>>> My suggestion:
>>>
>>> { model | model.primaryForecast.parameters.q = ... }
>>>
>>> makes it clearer, I think, that what you want is of type the same as
>>> model, but for which the sub sub sub field called q is changed.
>>> At least that is what I meant, if I didn't mention that.
>>>
>>> Then if I want something whose type is the same as a primaryForecast,
>>> but whose q value has changed, one could write:
>>>
>>> { model.primaryForecast | parameters.q = ... }
>>>
>>> And if I want something of same type as
>>> model.primaryForecast.parameters, but with q changed, one could write:
>>>
>>> { model.primaryForecast.parameters | q = ... }
>>>
>>> Anyway, this remains wishful, ... I am yet to grok the appeal of lenses.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 12:34:24 PM UTC-4, Robin Heggelund Hansen
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, there is nothing against such a syntax, though I
>>>> think the preferred syntax would be `{ model.primaryForecast.parameters |
>>>> q
>>>> = ...}`
>>>> It just haven't been implemented yet.
>>>>
>>> --
>> 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 elm-discuss...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
--
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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
