Re: Non-destructive record update??

From: Pascal Brisset (brisset@recherche.enac.fr)
Date: Thu Apr 16 1998 - 16:47:28 MET DST


Message-Id: <199804161447.QAA31434@indigo.recherche.enac.fr>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:47:28 +0200
From: Pascal Brisset <brisset@recherche.enac.fr>
To: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: Non-destructive record update??
In-Reply-To: <199804161419.QAA16455@pauillac.inria.fr>
 <199804161419.QAA16455@pauillac.inria.fr>

Pierre Weis writes:
> We propose the notation {expr with label1 = e1; lable2 = e2 ... } to
> mean the record returned by the expression expr with fields label1,
> label2, ... set to values e1, e2, ...

 Is it a good idea to ``hide'' the copy of one object behind a simple
keyword ? I think such operation should be more explicit. Something with
the 'new' keyword like

        new expr with {label1 = e1; lable2 = e2 ... }

makes things a bit clearer.

 Anyway, a function Record.copy would be enough !

--Pascal



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:14 MET