well I mostly asked that because I was confused of this sentence here from you b4:
The some irritated me in that sense that it sound for me like not everything I mentioned as “bug” or currently not-working is logged, so, yea, only some of those but apparently you logged all what I claimed to be as not “production-ready-yet”?
This was my bad calling it like that, you right, im not speaking so to say, of that polymorphism, but a pseudo variance of that, where you could “polymorphically” access a records member from any input, who is a Desendant of Base AND has that field.
So when calling: “
bigger.TakeBigger(<here_anytype_who_inherits_from_base_can_be_placed>” and as I said, it really does it, already but names cannot be equal from base and desendant records, so the polymorphy in that sense works only if you put Base as parameter, and access a field ONLY base has, and now you can pass any desendant of base and the proper field will be called, if it is not included once again! Like if Base has (a, b) and TSub has © then you can access in that function
TSub.a polymorphically, which is nice. Only the way when the names collide do4esnt work, I dont know what Carlo would say to that, im confused myself with that case tbf.