3 ms·
> I have no idea I can tell. Thankfully the OCaml textbook has this explicitly called out. https://dev.realworldocaml.org/variants.html#combining-records-and
by ackfoobar 1y ago
> I have no idea
I can tell.
Thankfully the OCaml textbook has this explicitly called out.
https://dev.realworldocaml.org/variants.html#combining-records-and-variants https://dev.realworldocaml.org/variants.html#combining-recor...
> The main downside is the obvious one, which is that an inline record can’t be treated as its own free-standing object. And, as you can see below, OCaml will reject code that tries to do so.
- wiseowise 1y agoThat's for embedded records. You can have the same thing as Kotlin but with better syntax.
- ackfoobar 1y agoIf you don't do inline records you either - create a separate record type, which is no less verbose than Java's approach - use positional destructuring, which is bug prone for business logic. Also it's funny that you think OCaml records are "with better syntax". It's a weak part of the language creating ambiguity. People work around this qurik by wrapping every record type in its own module. https://dev.realworldocaml.org/records.html#reusing-field-names https://dev.realworldocaml.org/records.html#reusing-field-na...