Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes:

> I agree that it scales poorly, but the same objection arguably applies to
> /constructors/ (and parents) with positional arguments, yet these are built
> into the basic syntax.

Well, but it's much less serious here, as there are typically many
occurrences of an accessor for a single occurrence of a constructor.
Moreover, in the present design, the constructor must always receive a
full slate of arguments.

Furthermore, keywords for constructors can easily be built on top of
what's there, as can keywords (or whatever) for pattern matching.
(But who am I talking to? :-) )

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla