>I'd rather drop this special syntax in favor of a simple function: I fully agree. Another pro for it: You can pass it as an argument to another function. (Maybe that's what you meant by "more convenient"?)
I'm not sure whether I want `range 1 5` to return `[1,2,3,4,5]` or `[1,2,3,4]` though. Most languages use the latter, but most people better understand the former. On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-5, Richard Feldman wrote: > > Currently the way you do ranges (like, say, to create the list [ 1, 2, 3, > 4, 5 ]) is this: > > [ 1..5 ] > > This comes up super infrequently, and whenever it does, it's hard to > Google for - when you want to know things like "can I use variables in > there?" "is [1..5] going to give me 1,2,3,4,5 or 1,2,3,4?" etc. > > I'd rather drop this special syntax in favor of a simple function: > > List.range : number -> number -> List number > > It'd make for one less piece of syntax to learn, would simplify the > compiler, and personally I'd find it more convenient to use than the > special syntax. This way when I want to know how it works I can look it up > in the List docs like normal! > > Thoughts? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
