... | ... | @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ So we have decided to avoid the extensible record debate, but how can we have mu |
|
|
1. **[Type Indexed Records](records/type-indexed-records)**. (Plan B)
|
|
|
1. **[Type-Punning Declared Overloaded Record Fields](records/type-punning-declared-overloaded-record-fields) (TPDORF)**. In the DORF stable. (Plan B)
|
|
|
1. **[Explicit Classy Records](records/explicit-classy-records)**
|
|
|
1. **[ polymorphic extensible records with scoped labels (implemented in Elm)](http://elm-lang.org/blog/announce/version-0.7.elm)**
|
|
|
1. **polymorphic extensible records with scoped labels** by Daan Leijen, [ (implemented in Elm)](http://elm-lang.org/blog/announce/version-0.7.elm) and in the DSL [ WaveScript](http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~rrnewton/wavescope/WaveScope_+_WaveScript/)
|
|
|
1. **Are there any other approaches?**
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Similarities
|
... | ... | |