> > I guess this is considered a feature, but I just wanted to report
that
> > in my current situation I actually find it unhelpful. 
> 
> 	You'd rather be forced to code something like:
> 
> 	function { a=a; b=_ } -> a;;
> 
> where all the fields have to be named, but some of them can 
> be specified as ignored?

I guess the point is that I don't use record pattern matching much, and
where I do I don't want partial matches.  Or at least I have a cases
where enforcing full matching would catch more bugs.  For example, if
I'm writing marshalling code for the record by hand I want the type
system to tell me if I have forgotten to marshal a field.

> There is a sense in which
> 
> 	record.a
> 
> is just a shorthand for
> 
> 	match record with { a=value } -> value
> 
> which means that you might argue that the notation 
> 
> 	record.a
> 
> should be completed by naming every field too :-)

You could argue that, but I wouldn't....

Don
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr