You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently support nominal types (eg if two records have compatible definition, we still do not accept substitution). Maybe we should support structural typing.
If a record, R, as fields a, b and c, and someone expects a record E, with fields a and b (of compatible types), should in instance or R be accepted as instance of E?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
We currently support nominal types (eg if two records have compatible definition, we still do not accept substitution). Maybe we should support structural typing.
https://leptonic.solutions/blog/nominal-vs-structural-types/
If a record, R, as fields a, b and c, and someone expects a record E, with fields a and b (of compatible types), should in instance or R be accepted as instance of E?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions