Re: [Caml-list] strange behavior with record type definition

[skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>]

On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 21:20 +0900, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> >>Mmhh, why do we have to use differents label names in distinct record 
> >>types ?
> > 
> > 
> > So that the type of an expression:
> > 
> > 	{ x = 1; y = 2 }
> > 
> > can be determined.
> 
> It could still be determined using all the labels together instead of 
> the first one only, but that will not go well with the { r with ... } 
> construct.

Hmmm .. but that must have the type of r, so if you had
a 'multi-label' solution this would be quite nice, since
it would help constrain the type of r.

In a whole program analyser this would always be enough:
if there is any doubt due to some unused fields, then those
fields would just be dropped since they're not used .. :)

[Felix will do this for classes, not so much by design
as because that's how the instantiator works ..]

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net