New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Usability of ADTs #686

Closed

jcp19 opened this issue Sep 28, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #687

Labels

enhancement syntax type checking

Contributor

jcp19 commented Sep 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Currently, ADTs can be very cumbersome to use. From my experience in SCION, this mostly comes from 3 points:

constructors of different ADT types must have different names, and a constructor cannot have the same name as a type. Here, it could be useful to allow the user to qualify a constructor with its type to resolve any ambiguities when present
match expressions must have strongly pure sub expressions: this hurts the usability of match statements, specially when defining predicates
ADT constructors must have named parameters

jcp19 added enhancement type checking syntax labels

Felalolf mentioned this issue

Several ADT improvements #687

Merged

jcp19 closed this as completed in #687

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment