On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 10:31 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> I've got no idea how this could be implemented and typed though.
BTW2: you can do this:
typedef XY = { x:int; y:long; };
typedef XYZ = {x:int; y:long; z:float; };
fun f(a:XY) ...
var xyz = { x=1; y=2L; z
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 10:31 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> On 7/31/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I kind of like this idea. It feels lispy. Say { ... } actually created
> a raw stack frame, where the thing it was passed to had access to all
> the internal values and variables. This raw
On 7/31/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This can help a little with emulating keyword arguments to a function,
> > with something ugly like this:
>
> On todo list .. the syntax sucks with keyword 'struct' needed,
> but { .. } has two other meanings as a closure for both
> procedures and
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 00:50 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> We don't support ocaml's "with" construct with our records yet, do we?
Nope. It could be done I guess, with compiler support and caveats:
> val x = struct { a = 5; b = 6; };
> val y = struct { x with a = 1; }; // equals struct { a = 1;
We don't support ocaml's "with" construct with our records yet, do we?
For those unfamiliar with this, it would be something like this in
pseudo-felix:
val x = struct { a = 5; b = 6; };
val y = struct { x with a = 1; }; // equals struct { a = 1; b = 6; }
This can help a little with emulating ke
