@Bob H & @Andrew R: Thank you. @Janis: It's likely that we could continue to produce extensions/refactors to each other's examples for eternity (which isn't a bad thing, I don't think this is a waste of time at all). In the case of such a `munge` in your example, yeah, following a "factor out common behaviour" maxim, I'd default to a new (likely non-exported) function as I did here: https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/621#issuecomment-103349671
@Richard F: >> That said, conflict breeds evolution and improvement. > It also slows down projects. If Evan spent time seriously considering every possible syntax improvement, Elm still wouldn't even have a virtual DOM system. Slippery slope. Wanting to not rock the boat under any circumstance creates echo chambers. Honest question: Do you know if Evan believes that conceding on `where` would mean "opening the floodgates", and he's concerned he'd never hear the end of proposals for improvements (from "the Haskell people" or otherwise)? > This is not a pain point for the overwhelming majority of the Elm community If the "target audience" is JS devs who have never heard of `where`, then of course it isn't, because they don't know what they're missing. We've seen a few non-Haskell Elm users here say "hey I'd like that". -- 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.
