3 ms·
A structurally-typed record would be a frame, as defined by Richard O'Keefe in his paper [1]. Maps aren't frames. Maps fit where dict and friends do. [1] http:
by nox_ 13y ago
A structurally-typed record would be a frame, as defined by Richard O'Keefe in his paper [1]. Maps aren't frames. Maps fit where dict and friends do.
[1] http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/ok/frames.pdf http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/ok/frames.pdf
- colanderman 13y agoOK, great. I want frames. But how can I get them if there's already similar syntax for something that can kind of do what frames do but isn't optimized for that use case? That's a difficult sell: "Oh, yes, Erlang has structurally typed records! No, it's not the syntax that looks like a record without a name, it's this other syntax." Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I think frames have pretty much zero chance of being implemented so long as maps have syntax support.