I was assuming the mechanism used for records with a certain field (types
like `{ a | field : t }` could be reused here, but maybe the internal
storage of records and tuples is divergent.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-5, Max Goldstein wrote:
>
> This solution would require some not-currently-in-place polymorphism since
> .0 can access the first field in tuples of many sizes. That is, you'd need
> one signature that comprises all of:
>
> .0 : (a, b) -> a
> .0 : (a, b, c) -> a
> .0 : (a, b, c, d) -> a
> ... and so on
>
> It sounds like the third-party library should be using records; maybe you
> can ask them to change their API? I haven't seen many good uses of
> n-tuples, n > 2, recently.
>
>
>
--
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.
