I can't think of a use case where defining an intermediary type wouldn't solve the immediate issue; philosophically I dislike naming things which are unimportant.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-5, Aaron VonderHaar wrote: > > One reason `first` and `second` are only defined for 2-tuples is that it's > usually a better choice to use records if you have more than a couple > fields. > > If defining a record type alias and giving names to you're fields doesn't > work for your situation, can you give more details about why? > > On Dec 27, 2016 7:09 AM, "Mike MacDonald" <craz...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> On a somewhat regular basis, I end up needing to extract a single field >> from a tuple provided from a third-party function. At the moment, I have to >> write a boilerplate function just to pattern match it out. If I need the >> second field of tuple of a different size, I need to write more boilerplate. >> >> Seeing as record filed names cannot start with digits, and the language >> only allows up to Tuple9, it would be nice to have `.0` through `.8` as >> accessors to the tuple. This is symmetric with record field access >> "methods", and seems like a moderate ergonomic gain. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- >> 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.
