From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Passing indefinite types
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:46:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2013-02-03T19:46:02-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a8403c4-2bbe-44e8-a8a1-996cc8a1f1be@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d39b2ad-dc6c-4492-bc43-d2d01d748efa@googlegroups.com>
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:25:39 PM UTC-6, sbelm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That's what access discriminats (and to a lesser extent, access parameters) usually work well for, but I suppose there is no way to create an unconstrained number of them. What I would like to see is an aspect that says "this discriminated record is not going to be variant, so it's okay to nest it within records and arrays", so that arrays of 'accessors' are legal.
>
> Thank you (everyone) for the responses.
What about structuring your generic to take a [definite] private type as its parameter (and array thereof), then create a record-wrapper (a single field, that being your access-type) (with an accessor-function), then pass an array of those records?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-04 3:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-02 21:07 Passing indefinite types sbelmont700
2013-02-02 21:31 ` Jeffrey Carter
2013-02-03 0:27 ` sbelmont700
2013-02-03 8:07 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2013-02-03 10:22 ` gautier_niouzes
2013-02-03 22:26 ` Stephen Leake
2013-02-04 1:25 ` sbelmont700
2013-02-04 3:46 ` Shark8 [this message]
2013-02-05 2:40 ` Randy Brukardt
2013-02-05 13:01 ` Stephen Leake
2013-02-05 20:56 ` Randy Brukardt
2013-02-05 21:16 ` sbelmont700
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox