As for tersity, I presume the actual usage would look like „foo as Map“ or „foo
as List“ anyway, which is actually one less keypress :), and — which in my
personal opinion is considerably more important — it offers better consistency
and polymorphism.
(I know next to nothing of Intellisense, bu
Hmmm, yes, that would be an option.
More terse & can be discovered via Intellisense are two reasons I could
think of that speak for the toList()/toMap() approach...
Cheers,
mg
On 02/11/2021 12:48, OCsite wrote:
Hi there,
I am probably missing something obvious here, but why adding separate m
Hi there,
I am probably missing something obvious here, but why adding separate methods
for this instead of simply reusing asType?
Thanks and all the best,
OC
> On 2. 11. 2021, at 8:35, Paul King wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback! I added "toMap()" to the PR.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:02
Thanks for the feedback! I added "toMap()" to the PR.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:02 AM MG wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> quick "from the top of my head" reply:
>
> copyWith(...): Sounds like a great idea, I have record-like classes in use,
> and the need for something like this arises immediately in pra
