使用jquery暂停mediaelement.js(Pause mediaelement.js using jquery)

 是的，这是F＃那件闪亮盔甲的瑕疵。 我不觉得有一个通用的解决方案可以轻松地继承或扩展记录。 毫无疑问，人们对此有兴趣 - 我已经计算了十几个用户提交的提交内容，这些内容主要是根据这些方面进行改进的 - 这里有几个主要的提案，可以投票： 1,2,3,4,5 。 
 
 当然，有些事情可以解决这个问题，根据你的情况，它们可能对你很好。 但最终 - 他们是解决方法，你必须牺牲一些东西： 
 
 
 
 使用反射时速度和类型安全， 
 
 
 当你采用安全的方式并拥有完整的记录和转换功能时， 
 
 
 当您决定退回到纯.NET类和继承时，记录所有的语法和语义优点都可以免费使用。 
 
 
 类型提供者不会削减它，因为它们不是一个真正的元编程的好工具。 这不是他们设计的。 如果您尝试以这种方式使用它们，您肯定会遇到一些限制。 
 
 首先，你只能根据外部信息提供类型。 这意味着尽管你可以有一个类型提供者，它可以通过反射从.NET程序集中提取类型，并提供一些基于它的派生类型，但是你不能“内省”到你正在构建的程序集中。 所以没有办法从早先在同一个程序集中定义的类型派生。 
 
 我想你可以通过围绕类型提供者构建你的项目来解决这个问题，但这听起来很笨拙。 即使如此，你仍然无法提供记录类型，所以你最好做的就是纯.NET类。 
 
 对于为数据库提供某种ORM映射的更具体的用例 - 我想你可以使用类型提供者就好了。 只是不作为一个通用的元编程设施。 

Yes, that's a chink in F#'s otherwise shiny armor. I don't feel there's a universal solution there for easily inheriting or extending a record. No doubt there is an appetite for one - I've counted over a dozen uservoice submissions advocating improvements along these lines - here are a few leading ones, feel free to vote up: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
 
For sure, there are things you can do to work around the problem, and depending on your scenario they might work great for you. But ultimately - they're workarounds and there's something you have to sacrifice:
 
 
 
Speed and type safety when using reflection,
 
 
Brevity when you go the type safe way and have full-fledged records with conversion functions between them,
 
 
All the syntactic and semantic goodness that records give you for free when you decide to fall back to plain .NET classes and inheritance.
 
 
Type providers won't cut it because they're not really a good tool for metaprogramming. That's not what they were designed for. If you try to use them that way, you're bound to hit some limitation.
 
For one, you can only provide types based on external information. This means that while you could have a type provider that would pull in types from a .NET assembly via reflection and provide some derived types based on that, you can't "introspect" into the assembly you're building. So no way of deriving from a type defined earlier in the same assembly.
 
I guess you could work around that by structuring your projects around the type provider, but that sounds clunky. And even then, you can't provide record types anyway yet, so best you could do are plain .NET classes.
 
For a more specific use case of providing some kind of ORM mapping for a database - I imagine you could use type providers just fine. Just not as a generic metaprogramming facility.