On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:36:44AM +0100, Pierre Weis wrote:
> > Another idea would be to add some construct to use something like :
> > 
> > type p3d = { x:float;y:float;z:float }
> > type p2d = { x:float;y:float }
> > 
> > and then be able to do :
> > 
> > {p3d.x=10.;p3d.y=20.;p3d.z=30.}
> > 
> > and 
> > 
> > {p2d.x=0; p2d.y=5}
> > 
> > Would this be difficult to do ?
> 
> You will have ambiguities in accessing records: what means r.y.z ?  Is
> it access to field z of type y of r, or access to field z of access to
> field y of r ?
> 
> I would suggest another syntactic notation to specify the type to
> which a label belongs: label@@type.
> 
> {x@@p2d = 0; y = 5}
> r.x@@p2d

Yes, didn't think about it, but that would be best.

(too bad there is not a third kind of case to do the same kind of trick that
is done with modules ...)

Friendly,

Sven Luther