If 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

If 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...