Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous labeled structs and enums are some of my top wished-for features in programming languages! For instance, in Rust you can define labelled and unlabelled (i.e. tuple) structs struct Foo(i32, i32); struct Bar{sum: i32, product: i32} But you can only e.g. return from functions an anonymous tuple, not an anonymous labelled struct fn can() -> (i32, i32) fn cant() -> {sum: i32, product: i32}
Hmm. Let me first check that I've understood what you care about struct First(this: i8, that: i64) struct Second(this: i8, that: i8) struct Third(that: i64, this: i8) struct Fourth(this: i8, that: i64) struct Fifth(some: i8, other: i64) You want First and Fourth as the same type, but Second and Third are different - how about Fifth? I see that this is different from Rust's existing product types, in which First and F…
Re: OxCaml - a set of extensions to the OCaml programming language.
#21they're not asking for a structural typing overhaul, just a way to make ad-hoc anonymous types with named fields and pass them around. a lot of times with tuple return types you're left wondering what that random `usize` is supposed to represent, so having names for it would be very convenient. i don't see why, under the hood, it couldn't just be implemented the exact same way as current tuple return types