Don Syme
Don Syme
@brettfo @cartermp What's the status/severity on this, is it now fixed?
I would be happy to see this change made
Could you try with feature/ext?
I think I'm basically OK with this - it is true that it is no worse than `{| x with A = 1 |}` and aligned with it. Note this...
Don't be shy :) let without = {| with="or"; without="you" |} let with = {| without without without |}
I guess `with-` would work, as a new keyword (in the language `with` is never followed by `-` today) ``` {| a with- Foo; Bar with Baz = ... |}...
> Would there be an issue with a contexual keyword like this? I don't think it's too crazy. Generally I don't think I'd like with-; we don't really have a...
perhaps this would fly, though it's a bit weird too: {| a with not Foo; not Bar; Baz = ... |} or {| a with -Foo; -Bar; Baz = ......
> Can someone describe why this is needed? What are the applications or existing use-cases / scenarios? I think the OP explains why - basically, if you can create a...
> Though the two suggestions are sort of related, but the ability to "drop a column and move on" seems distinct enough from structural subtyping to warrant its own issue....