... | ... | @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Explained in 5 wiki pages (these proposals are linked but somewhat orthogonal): |
|
|
- **[No Record Selector Functions](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/no-mono-record-fields)** (precursor to DORF)
|
|
|
- ** DORF -- Application Programmer's view ** (this page)
|
|
|
- **[DORF -- Implementer's view](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/implementors-view)**
|
|
|
- **[DORF -- Comparison to SORF (and TDNR)](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/c-ompare-sorf)**
|
|
|
- **[DORF -- Comparison to SORF (and TDNR)](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/compare-sorf)**
|
|
|
- **[Dot as Postfix Function Apply](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/dot-postfix)** (***optional*** syntactic sugar)
|
|
|
- **[Polymorphic Record Patterns](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/poly-record-pattern)** (***speculative*** future)
|
|
|
|
... | ... | @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ We need a way to declare that a name is available as an overloadable field name |
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
> (See discussion at [Wild afterthought](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/c-ompare-sorf#the-string-type-parameter-to-has-,-and-scope-control).)
|
|
|
> (See discussion at [Wild afterthought](records/declared-overloaded-record-fields/compare-sorf#the-string-type-parameter-to-has-,-and-scope-control).)
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Option Three: Mixed In-situ and Declared ORF:**
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |