> > One reason is what Evan says at > https://github.com/elm-lang/core/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#adding-new-functions: > > new functions are not so quickly expected to go into core, instead to be > accumulated in *-extra packages first. > I didn't realize that was the case. Thanks for the info.
it is better to do a recursive call to the `update` function, or better > yet: call the function that your command would call > I respectfully disagree. Depending on the application, this either may not be possible or would be a terrible code smell. I honestly think the above suggestion would be worse than chaining another Cmd msg. Sending another Cmd msg is clean and follows the Elm architecture. Another case that wouldn't work out so well for is the init function. The init function returns a (model, Cmd msg). I think it'd be much cleaner for the init function to call sendMsg (or equivalent) instead of the init function calling either my update function or the function that would be called for that msg. > > -- 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.
