"With" for records

[Steve Barham]

> This should remind people of the *compact constructor* in a record; the 
> body is allowed to freely mutate the special variables (who also don't 
> have obvious declarations), and their terminal values determine the 
> state of the record.
> 
> Just as we were able to do record patterns without having full-blown 
> deconstructors, we can do with expressions on records as well, because 
> (a) we still have a canonical ctor, (b) we have accessors, and (c) we 
> know the names of the components.

…

> with the X and Y values of the operand. Their values are committed at 
> the end of the block using the canonical constructor.

Is it correct to say the canonical constructor here? Would the compact constructor not be a better choice, as it gives implementors access to validate the new values to be committed?


Cheers,

Steve

(apologies for the not replying to the thread; I subscribed to the list just recently, and don’t know that I can poke Mailman into sending me past messages so that I can reply to them)