It’s not a syntax, it’s just a function (<>). Also how would you ”improve” list of records?
Doesn't matter, it's annoying to type and read. What's wrong with '+'? (Rhetorical question, nothing is wrong with '+')
> Also how would you ”improve” list of records?
Admittedly, I had not thought of a better solution, but it looks noisy where supposedly such a language should look "clean".
Perhaps something like this:
examples:{title:string, gist:string} = [
{ "Algebraic Data Types", "37c3c97f47a43f20c548" }
{ "Loops", "cfdabdcd085d4ac3dc46" }
{ "Operators", "3044550f29a7c5d3d0d0" }
{ "Records", "b80be527ada3eab47dc5" }
{ "Recursion", "ff49cc7dc85923a75613" }
{ "Do Notation", "47c2d9913c5dbda1e963" }
{ "Type Classes", "1a3b845e8c6defde659a" }
{ "Generic Programming", "3f735aa2a652af592101" }
{ "QuickCheck", "69f7f94fe4ff3bd47f4b" }
]For the list of examples, you can just use tuples if you want the "clean" look. There is no need to change the record semantics which is the same in almost all languages.
Huh? You can't realistically "concatenate" two numbers and you can't "add" two strings. You can only concatenate two strings, or a string and an (implicitly converted) number. You can only add two numbers, or the elements of two number arrays (or matrices). Plus isn't the "sum operator" (Σ). There generally is no sum operator, there's a sum function (which works on iterables).
So what's the issue? It doesn't cause problems unless you confuse types, which shouldn't happen in a statically typed language.
> For the list of examples, you can just use tuples if you want the "clean" look.
Is that really true though? Can I initialize an array of records with tuples that are implicitly named?
> There is no need to change the record semantics which is the same in almost all languages.
This is basically C/C++ syntax, which somehow manages to be less verbose than many supposedly terser languages.