Simon Jakobi
Simon Jakobi
@Nadrieril Ah, yes, that's better! `dhall lint` should also detect unused bindings here, and turn e.g. ``` let { foo, bar } = { foo = 1, bar = 2...
```dhall let { foo, bar as renamed_bar, baz as _ } = { foo = 1, bar = 2, baz = "bla" } in foo + renamed_bar ``` seems reasonable...
@ocharles The problem with `..` or `...` is that it opts out of the exhaustiveness check, which is reasonable for imports, but not for some other uses.
What I don't like so much about `baz as _` is that `_` is just a regular old variable name in other contexts where it doesn't mean "ignore me". >...
> Another question, is nested unpacking going to be allowed, e.g. can you do: > > ``` > let r = { foo : Natural, bar : {x : Natural,...
And more clarification: I want to have _both_ `..` or `...` for opting out of the exhaustiveness check _and_ a way of ignoring fields while _not_ opting out of the...
> Personally, I would like to have `_` attain its "usual" (Haskell et al.) status; it seems a pretty common convention, and I doubt there is much in the way...
Given ```dhall let _ = 2 let { bar = _, foo = _ } = { foo = 0, bar = 1 } in [ _, _@1, _@2 ]...
> Although I guess that it would be better not to duplicate the record on the RHS for performance reasons… I guess a related question is what ```dhall \(x :...
Should `..` always appear in the last position, or is e.g. ```dhall let { .., foo } = x ``` also ok?