let Method = { Name:string } //oversimplification
let method_parser =
spaces >>. many1Satisfy isLetter .>> spaces
|>> (fun name -> { Name=name })
Had I chosen to use a Method discriminated union, instead, and things would be a bit more succinct:
let method_parser =
spaces >>. many1Satisfy isLe开发者_开发百科tter .>> spaces
|>> Method
I believe there is no way to avoid this kind of verbosity when using record types in F#. Am I right?
A record is very similar to a discriminated union with just a single case. In some cases, I would also prefer a union, because it is easier to use. However, records have two main advantages:
They give names to the fields, which partly causes the verbosity, but makes code more self-explanatory
If you have small number of fields, you can use tuple or single-case union.They allow you to use the
{ info with Name = "Tomas" }
syntax for cloning records
If you don't need this, you can use standard F# classes (which have more .NET feel)
If you want to get the benefits of records, but still use simple syntax for creating then, then you can define a static member for constructing your record:
type Info =
{ Name : string
Count : int }
static member Create(name:string, count:int) =
{ Name = name; Count = count }
Then you can write:
// Simple example using the above type:
let res = ("hello", 5) |> Info.Create
// I expect this would work for your type like this:
let method_parser =
spaces >>. many1Satisfy isLetter .>> spaces
|>> Method.Create
精彩评论