Yeah, I assumed this would be a preference thing. However, for me the
question is never "What does this module expose" but "is this function
private and public?" and the fact that I have to go to the top of the file
and scan a list to see if that's the case is a minor inconvenience when it
could have just been a part of the function signature, as is the case in
most other languages.
OvermindDL1 suggestion wasn't that far from what I imagined, but I'll
provide some more examples anyway.
```elm
expose
type alias Person =
{ name : String
, age : Int
}
expose(..)
type List = Cons | Nil
expose
sum : List Int -> Int
sum =
List.foldl (+)
```
mandag 8. august 2016 18.00.18 UTC+2 skrev Rex van der Spuy følgende:
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 3:44:30 AM UTC-4, Robin Heggelund Hansen
> 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".
>>
>>
> Just for the record, I like this feature.
> I prefer to have my list of exposed functions in one convenient place
> rather than scattered throughout the file.
>
--
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.
