Changes between Version 31 and Version 32 of ExtensibleRecords


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 26, 2007 3:47:21 PM (6 years ago)
Author:
barney
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • ExtensibleRecords

    v31 v32  
    164164expressions: {n1 = e1, ... , nn = en} --> mkUnderlyingRecord n1 e1 ( ... mkUnderlyingRecord nn en underlyingEmptyRecord) 
    165165types: {n1 :: t1, ..., nn :: tn} --> MkUnderlyingRecord n1 e1 ( ... MkUnderlyingRecord nn en UnderlyingEmptyRecord) 
    166 patterns: {n1 = p1, ... , nn = pn} --> (viewUnderlyingRecord n1 -> p1) @ ... @ (viewUnderlyingRecord nn -> pn) 
     166patterns: {n1 = p1, ... , nn = pn} --> (viewUnderlyingRecord n1 -> (p1, ...  ,(viewUnderlyingRecord nn -> (pn, viewUnderlyingEmptyRecord -> ()))) 
     167patterns: {n1 = p1, ... , nn = pn, ..} --> (viewUnderlyingRecord n1 -> (p1, ...  ,(viewUnderlyingRecord nn -> (pn, _))) 
    167168}}} 
    168 Libraries could then implement {{{mkUnderlyingRecord}}}, {{{underlyingEmptyRecord}}}, {{{MkUnderlyingRecord}}}, {{{UnderlyingEmptyRecord}}} and {{{viewUnderlyingRecord}}} in whatever way is best. 
    169 What do you think? 
     169Libraries could then implement {{{mkUnderlyingRecord}}}, {{{underlyingEmptyRecord}}}, {{{MkUnderlyingRecord}}}, {{{UnderlyingEmptyRecord}}}, {{{viewUnderlyingRecord}}}  and {{{viewUnderlyingEmptyRecord}}} in whatever way is best. What do you think? 
    170170