4 ms·
That's for embedded records. You can have the same thing as Kotlin but with better syntax.
by wiseowise 1y ago
That'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...