On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
> So the definition of List might look like:
> type List a
> = Nil
> | Cons a (List a)
> That’s exactly how the definition of List would look like if it didn’t
> have a native implementation.
> So it seems you already know everything.
:-) Sweet. 20 years ago I was a CS undergrad and they made us learn ML. I
did my final year project in Moscow ML (a compiler) and my masters project
in OCaml (an AI pattern matching thing). I remember at the time saying "it
will be 20 years before this stuff becomes mainstream". Well, I think ocaml
and haskell have made some good progress in that time. I haven't touched it
though for 20 years, so its taking a while to figure things out again.
not find a readable book on the subject. I definitely think the Elm docs
need a lot of work because they leave a lot of gaps. Perhaps the upcoming
"Elm in Action" book will be comprehensive in its coverage:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.