On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Joey Eremondi <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we went crazy with this, most keywords / common functions from other >> languages would be listed as keywords for their elm equivalents >> and it could make life easier, I imagine > > > A far more robust solution is just to have Hoogle-like search, where you > put in the type, and it tells you what functions have that type, or similar > types. So instead of searching "flatMap" or "concatMap" or "bind", you > search ((a -> List b) -> List a -> List b). > > This seems simpler than trying to keep track of what each function is > called in ML, F#, Scala, Haskell, Lisp, etc. > It would be robust in the sense that as more libraries are added, there would continue to be a scalable way to search for things without knowing their names. However, these two suggestions are not mutually exclusive, and I can see a strong case for (at least) the core libraries to have some metadata along with them that makes things more searchable from the perspective of someone new coming in from other common languages. -- 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.
