4 ms·
You should have included a record field of the same name in both data types, since this is where the proposal really shines. E.g. if both data types were to co
by runeks 6y ago
You should have included a record field of the same name in both data types, since this is where the proposal really shines.
E.g. if both data types were to contain an "id" field then "taken.id" and "class.id" wouldn't result in a compilation error as it does now.
- hardwaresofton 6y agoOh that's another big issue, thanks for pointing that out! Accessor functoin collisions was already somewhat solved, but this is a much nicer solution. That code is copy-pasted by the way, from the proposal.