I agree that automatic serialization/deserialization of union types is orthogonal to this idea, but I am default interested in any language simplification!
Ignoring ctor implications, here are my initial thoughts on that idea on its own merits: - These union type constructors are functions - The consensus is that curried is nicer than tupled for Elm functions on the whole - Why would the opposite be true for these particular functions? I don't have a good answer for that, which makes me lean toward the status quo. That said, automatic serialization/deserialization of union types would be nice. :) -- 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.
