Op dinsdag 22 november 2016 13:47:55 UTC+1 schreef Charlie Koster: > > 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. > I agree it depends on the application. Sometimes `Cmd msg` would be better, sometimes it would be worse. `Cmd msg` follows the Elm architecture, but I have seen terrible bugs being introduced by improper use, caused by Cmd messages being created based on model state A, and because of race conditions (e.g. fetch results coming in in the meantime), the call that the elm runtime made to the update function was with model state B. (when using Cmd, there is NO guarantee about the state of the model that the runtime will pass to the update function).
When I was beginning to learn Elm, this function was not around, and it forced me to learn more about TEA, Tasks, runtime etcetera. Which in hindsight was IMHO a good thing. -- 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.
