Skip to content

Empty record types should be definable #83

@adamgundry

Description

@adamgundry

Currently a record with no fields yields a parse error, but it would be useful to be able to define objects that currently have no fields but may be extended in the future. I guess the parsing issue is that we can't tell whether a subsequent bar :: Bar is a field name and type occurrence, or the prefix and name of a brand new type declaration.

foo :: Foo
  = record

...

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions