Elm optimizes for learning and in doing so, encourages people to write clear code.
I too had a brief love affair with primes after watching Leslie Lamport videos about TLA+ and discovering that they are allowed in Elm. I was encouraged to move away from them and favor a more explicit name like newModel. I did it and never looked back. I found that if I needed more than one prime, it was a very good sign that I might need to use functions. Instead of naming my intermediary values something silly and useless like model03, I named the process something meaningful and then chained the processes with |> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:28 AM, mbr <[email protected]> wrote: > just learned that primes and backticks won't be on elm 0.18. > > What are the reason for their removal? > > I will miss the primes quite a bit. Am I the only one here that feels this > way ? > > For instance, I would have to write headerModel___ and headerModel__ > instead of headerModel''' and headerModel'' > In the prime case I count the 'while on the underscore case I will > compare its length. > > at the end of the day, I will just skip the underscore and use number like > headerModel03 and headerModel02. > > And my case for backticks, I understand it will make the andThen API > easier, but why completely remove it from the language ? > > I guess my main question is, What is the motivation for their removal ? > > -- > 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.
