-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Declaration/syntax for sum types/union arrays? #237
Comments
Expressing and dealing with variants cogently is an important element of most data processing from messy sources. I'd like to add that it's important to be able to represent exhaustive and non-exhaustive versions of this as well. The non-exhaustive version is probably sufficient to represent with something like, "I couldn't handle this, so here's the byte sequence that was observed." |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The flip-side of record types (product types), in which each element has an instance of all fields, are tagged union types (sum types), in which each element has an instance of exactly one type from a list of possible types. For example,
This can be implemented, for instance, with an array of tags (types), optional indexes (offsets), and an array for each type. See, for example, the Arrow implementation.
Are there any plans to support specifications of this kind of data?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: