On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:49:13 PM UTC, Rupert Smith wrote: > > This would seem to make extensible records a lot less useful than they > could be. Is this one of those cases where an existential qualifier would > be needed to specify the type of the function? Or is this in fact a case > that could be typed in Elm without problem and that the type checker should > accept? >
Or to put it another way, is this a case that could type check just fine and not lead to a runtime error in the program, but is not allowed because it would break the type inference algorithm? If it can both type check and infer, then it should be allowed. -- 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.
