You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For a lot of potential use cases the array-of-tables notation doesn't work well. It's just not very readable if there are more than a few entries. So I was thinking about what the intent of these, and it seems to me they are for tables --not hash tables, but the other kind of tables we commonly use, like in a database. So it would follow, that a notation like so would do the trick:
Exact notation would have to be worked out. The above could work, I think, if single entry tables weren't allowed (i.e. there has to be at least two headers). That might be too restrictive though.
I think anyone will see the merit in this if they simply write out what the above looks like in the current array-of-tables notation --it takes up a whole screen.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For a lot of potential use cases the array-of-tables notation doesn't work well. It's just not very readable if there are more than a few entries. So I was thinking about what the intent of these, and it seems to me they are for tables --not hash tables, but the other kind of tables we commonly use, like in a database. So it would follow, that a notation like so would do the trick:
Exact notation would have to be worked out. The above could work, I think, if single entry tables weren't allowed (i.e. there has to be at least two headers). That might be too restrictive though.
I think anyone will see the merit in this if they simply write out what the above looks like in the current array-of-tables notation --it takes up a whole screen.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: