How would that actually look in code? Could you produce some mock code to show your idea?
You can use the Counter.elm from the elm architecture tutorial as a template. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Robin Heggelund Hansen < [email protected]> wrote: > There's one thing that has always bothered me with Haskell, and now also > Elm, and that is how functions are exposed. My problem with the way it > currently works is that you have go to the top of the file to see/alter if > a function is exposed to the "outside world". > > In Clojure and F#, it is default for top-level vars/functions to be > public, and you need to use a "private" keyword to restrict access. Since > Elm currently explicitly exposes functions at the top, I thought it would > be good to propose a public keyword instead. > > I assume that this is largely a preference thing, but I think it's worth a > discussion. What do people think of having a public/private keyword to > restrict access to variables/functions in modules, instead of the exposing > keyword we have today? > > -- > 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. > -- There is NO FATE, we are the creators. blog: http://damoc.ro/ -- 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.
