Closed gilligan closed 8 years ago
@paldepind care to have a look at this? :)
Hello @gilligan. I am sorry for leaving you waiting. I just had my last exam today—so I have more time now.
Thank you a lot_ for bringing the changes in the next
branch up to date and for pushing me to get these changes published.
This is my current plan:
Fix the problem I mentioned here:
The biggest problem in my implementation is that when you create a value from an object the fields will be put both in numerical properties (0, 1, etc.) and in the field name properties (name, id, etc.). I think not keeping numerical properties for record-like-types is the solution.
Does that sound fine to you?
Is it possible to merge this against the next
branch instead of the master
branch?
Sure, I will do a new PR tomorrow.
@gilligan Thank you :smile:
As described in #27 I rebased next fixing two failing tests. I also updated the README describing the new record syntax and the possibility to define instance methods.