Thanks for the answers, I had indeed made some poor choices of word in my
first email :(
Just before this thread dies, and out of the blue : What if...
- type alias never generates a constructor (change: records do not have
ctors)
- type always generate an "expanded" ctor
expanded as in :
type alias Faz = (Int, Int)
Faz : ø
type alias Fiz = { name : String, age : Int }
Fiz : ø
type alias Fuz a = { a | name : String }
Fuz : ø
type Foo
= Foo
| Bar Int
| Baz (String, String)
* | Biz { name : String, age : Int }*
* | Buz Fiz*
Foo : Foo
Bar : Int -> Foo
Baz : String -> String -> Foo
*Biz : String -> Int -> FooBuz : String -> Int -> Foo*
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC+1, Max Goldstein wrote:
>
> * rereads * Janis, you are incredibly good at telling people that they're
> wrong.
>
> Ah, I got caught up in the third paragraph about the native
> representation, and thought that those were Elm records, not JavaScript
> objects.
>
> Also, the phrase "No type value has more than one value", for all of its
> bold redness, reads perilously close to "no type has more than one tag".
>
> However, I think there's some value in pointing out the legitimacy of tags
> that have no arguments: under the proposal, union tags would still have
> either one argument or none, just not more than one. One of the more
> confusing parts of union types is that different tags can be functions of
> different arities or non-function values, depending on how they are
> defined. If we wanted to eliminate this confusion, we could require an
> arity of exactly one, and tags like Up and Down would need to be Up () and
> Down ().
>
> But that's needlessly confusing, so limiting the number of tags to one
> seems more like a restriction than a simplification. Yes, you've found a
> way to make a strictly smaller language without diminishing expressive
> power. The same is true for requiring f x y = ... to be written as f = \ x
> y -> ... but no one is advocating for that.
>
> So, I'm sorry I misunderstood your proposal and lectured on things you may
> well have known about. And for what it's worth, I've used two-argument
> constructors before, and I've advocated for records instead of positional
> arguments before. I think this is a place where we can allow some freedom
> to the programmer.
>
>
--
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.
