That suggests either the compiler distinguishes between implicit & explicit declarations, or constructors and tags are treated differently (my money's on the latter).
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 23:25:25 UTC, Joey Eremondi wrote: > > This is certainly a case where the message could be better, perhaps we > should log it at https://github.com/elm-lang/error-message-catalog if > something similar is not already there. > > Types and expressions (including Constructors) are in different > namespaces. So while there is a Type named Response, there's no Constructor > named Response, which is what the compiler is looking for in the pattern > match. > > What's confusing (to me) is that, when you do "type alias Foo = {field1, > field2...}", usually it generates a fake pseudo-constructor that lets you > make a record without naming fields, i.e. as "Foo x y...". But I guess > you're not allowed to pattern match with it? > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:08 PM, jadski <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> Though I still don't understand why the compiler says Http does not >> expose Response - that contradicts the code? >> >> -- >> 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.
