Closed llllllllll closed 8 years ago
Any other comments? Do you think that this is actually something we want in the library? I was working with some programatic dshapes today and it was pretty rough without this; however, I could understand not wanting to confuse people.
I'd mark this as an experimental feature then merge. Also add a big note that this particular syntax is subject change and possibly even removal
Where would I mark this, just in the whatsnew?
Also, one thought that I had when talking to scott was that this might be better with just a single :
to look more like the dshape string.
I'm okay with either syntax, but not both.
Yep mark in what's new
Okay, I think I prefer the single then since it is closer to the dshape sytax. I will make that change and update the whatsnew.
Just merged a PR that probably conflicted with this one
kk, I will rebase. I don't think the cleanups will confilict in a difficult way.
Implements the record literal syntax we discussed at strata
@cpcloud @jcrist