Re: Alternative syntax for function definitions?

[Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 27/10/2012 10:02, in article op.wmtx2nxkule2fv@cardamome, "Yannick
Duch�ne   (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:37:11 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> That is no problem. All types should have classes anyway. The dotted
>> notation itself is an implementation of some record interface.
> To talk about that point, I'm thinking of always using tagged types
> instead of legacy records, so as to be able to hide or expose the type
> definition without consequences on the client side, or even just change
> the layout. That's more resilient: if you have three properties A, B, C,
> where one is derived from the two other, say C is derived from A and B,
> and then decide later that instead C will be stored and B derived from A
> and C, you can do that without breaking client, if you use tagged records

How?

> (you can't with legacy record).

Why not?

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;