"we can be stronger by being nicer" :-) I agree, I like type annotations. Important documentation that is checked by the compiler, and is right there in your code. Every time I've tried writing a lot of Elm or Haskell code without annotations, I've wound up with confusing compiler bugs. Because I would make bad assumptions about the types of functions.
It's a nice talk, and an interesting idea. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:29 AM, John Orford <[email protected]> wrote: > I am in the middle of watching a video about 'ducked inference' in Ruby > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l3U1X3z0CE > > basically, static type checking / inference without the type annotations. > > The annotations will be kept in the background for compile time check, > documentation or IDE purposes... > > Any thoughts? > > I like my annotations, but I also like Matz's take, foo for thought. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
