Specifically, I am using the ParseErr and ParseOk types from elm-combine ( http://package.elm-lang.org/packages/Bogdanp/elm-combine/3.1.1/Combine#ParseErr ). I only care about the third value, since the first will always be unit, and the second will always be the end of the stream.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:14:08 PM UTC-5, Aaron VonderHaar wrote: > > Sorry for being unclear. Your point that it should be unnecessary to name > unimportant things is a valid one. Can you share the specifics of > scenarios where you have 3-tuples and larger where it doesn't make sense to > give names to each part? Elm's design is based on finding clean solutions > to real-world problems, so more examples of that are valuable to inform > Elm's future development. > > You also mentioned that you ran into this when using 3rd-party packages. > Can you point out some of the packages where you've needed to use functions > that returned 3-tuples and larger where you only cared about one of the > values in the tuple? > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Mike MacDonald <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I can't think of a use case where defining an intermediary type wouldn't >> solve the immediate issue; philosophically I dislike naming things which >> are unimportant. >> >> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-5, Aaron VonderHaar wrote: >>> >>> One reason `first` and `second` are only defined for 2-tuples is that >>> it's usually a better choice to use records if you have more than a couple >>> fields. >>> >>> If defining a record type alias and giving names to you're fields >>> doesn't work for your situation, can you give more details about why? >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2016 7:09 AM, "Mike MacDonald" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On a somewhat regular basis, I end up needing to extract a single field >>>> from a tuple provided from a third-party function. At the moment, I have >>>> to >>>> write a boilerplate function just to pattern match it out. If I need the >>>> second field of tuple of a different size, I need to write more >>>> boilerplate. >>>> >>>> Seeing as record filed names cannot start with digits, and the language >>>> only allows up to Tuple9, it would be nice to have `.0` through `.8` as >>>> accessors to the tuple. This is symmetric with record field access >>>> "methods", and seems like a moderate ergonomic gain. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
