{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo/issues/28","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo/issues/28/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo/issues/28/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo/issues/28/events","html_url":"https://github.com/baronfel/issueTestRepo/issues/28","id":183112868,"number":28,"title":"Introduce a different approach for resolving ambiguity of record types","user":{"login":"baronfel","id":573979,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/573979?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel","html_url":"https://github.com/baronfel","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/baronfel/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo/labels/declined","name":"declined","color":"171819"},{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/baronfel/issueTestRepo/labels/votes:1-10","name":"votes:1-10","color":"ededed"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-10-14T17:58:36Z","updated_at":"2016-10-14T17:58:36Z","closed_at":null,"body":"# Introduce a different approach for resolving ambiguity of record types [11464779] #\n\n**Submitted by Kevin Rood on 1/15/2016 12:00:00 AM**  \n**3 votes on UserVoice prior to migration**  \n\nSee the example here under the \"Conflict Resolution\" heading:\r\nhttp://davefancher.com/2012/11/27/f-record-types/\r\nPrefixing the type on a label seems inconsistent with how types are annotated elsewhere in the language. Perhaps something like this with the type annotation on the end would be more consistent:\r\n\"let myRecord = {} : RecordTypeName\"\n\n\n\n## Response ##\n** by fslang-admin on 1/23/2016 12:00:00 AM **\n\nYes, as noted in the comments a type annotation can already be used.\r\nDon Syme, F# Language Evolution\n\n\n**[Original UserVoice Submission](https://fslang.uservoice.com/245727-f-language/suggestions/11464779)**\n[Archived Uservoice Comments](../tree/master/archive/suggestion-11464779-introduce-a-different-approach-for-resolving-ambi.md#comments)\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"baronfel"}}