I'd agree with all that - but it was also trivially achievable in 0.17. Make no mistake, this is a *reduction* of the Elm language, the gamble being that it will result in more new users moving to and sticking with Elm, than existing users bailing in favour of some other alternative. I suspect it will probably work.
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 12:15:13 UTC, Witold Szczerba wrote: > > I really like the change (getting rid of an exceptional syntax), but > what's more important is how other things adapts: see the example > provided by Joey: > >For example, if you want the range [0 .. n] for n in [0 .. k]: > > > > Old syntax: > > map (\x -> [0 .. x]) [0 .. k] > > New syntax: > > map (Range 0) (Range 0 k) > > OK, it's just very simple piece of code, imagine something more > sophisticated… You can partially apply a function, but not the range > syntax. In functional languages like Elm, the more you have is nothing but > a normal function the better, other "building" blocks just get in the way. > > Regards, > Witold Szczerba > > > > -- 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.
