namespaced keys are actually awful
you wanted a record type not an infinite union of a bunch of shit
Conversation
Interesting. In what context? Clojure? I've actually wondering if the lack of namespaced labels has been part of the problem with implementations of extensible records in the past (OCaml, Purescript, Elm, etc), and part of the reason they don't get as much use…
1
2
yeah it's an idea I kicked around some as well. I think it solves a category of inheritance problems I've found rare or at least avoidable in my Clojure work, and I generally fall in the restrictive formalisms help actually camp.
1
1
the particular case I'm subtweeting here is a library for storing configuration as records where the records have a uniformly defined interpretation so the ability to play fast and loose with these structures kinda defeats the purpose of the library.
2
Would be interested to see an example of the troubles you are having! Currently designing a record/module system for my own language (github.com/brendanzab/pik), and having some examples of things to be avoided would be interesting!
1
It's not so much a counter example as it is just poor library ergonomics. It's a source not a pipeline component, so optimizing it to compose when it will be a driver incurs ergonomics costs to seemingly no benefit.
1
1
At least that's my current thinking. Largely convinced that the majority of what I see people use mappings for would be better served with records but for the ergonomics and this is kinda a manifestation of that thought.
1
Just gotta make everything a function! Will defs fix this problem! Church encode all the things 😆
1