I think this would be a reasonable change. The maybe decoder
<http://package.elm-lang.org/packages/elm-lang/core/4.0.5/Json-Decode#maybe>
in Json.Decode already works this way.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Kasey Speakman <kjspeak...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So something that I just tripped over...
>
> If you're bringing a JSON object in through a port, and the elm type def
> has:
>
> * type alias aFoo =*
> * { someFoo : Maybe String }*
>
> This JSON comes over properly:
>
> * { someFoo: null }*
>
> But this JSON throws an error:
>
> * { } // field omitted*
>
> If this data is from a JS library using an API, many default to omitting
> null fields in their output. Reasoning being, why carry extra stuff extra
> across the wire?
>
> Most serializers that I have used default to omitting null values from the
> serialized output.
>
> Seems to me that both null and undefined should translate to
> Maybe.Nothing when coming across a port.
>
> Anybody else run into this?
>
> --
> 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
