So let's back up: what problem are we trying to solve here?
The problem is that the syntax of "with" does not show that with
depends on the deconstructor and the constructor of the record, so the
behavior in case of separate compilation is not clear.
I think the lack of clarity you
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "Remi Forax" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:32:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Derived record creation and Data Oriented programming
> Interesting idea. Of the two sides, allowing explicit *constructor*
Interesting idea. Of the two sides, allowing explicit *constructor*
calls is significantly more practical (`yield` has control flow
consequences understood by the language, and obviously means "yield this
value from the current expression", whereas doing a random pattern match
with `this` as
Hello,
they have been several messages on amber-dev about the compatibility of the
derived record creation.
I think part of the issue reported is that with the proposed syntax, the call
to the desconstructor and the canonical constructor is implicit.
Let's take an example
record Point(int
