On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 3:49:34 AM UTC, Matthieu Pizenberg wrote:
>
> So I think a type becomes opaque if its constructors are not exposed, or
>> if its module is not exposed.
>> It might be better in that case, if the compiler just referred to the
>> opaque type as Animation.State?
>>
>
> Actually, the compiler can do that. I just checked and figured that it was
> a design choice from mdgriffith. I have made this simple example:
>
> -- module Private exposing (..)
> type Test = SomeTest | OtherTest
>
> -- module Public exposing (Test)
> import Private
> type alias Test = Private.Test
>
> -- module Test exposing (testFunction)
> import Public exposing (Test)
> import Private
> testFunction : Test
> testFunction = Private.SomeTest
>
> In that case, both the documentation and the compiler refers the return
> type of testFunction to be Public.test.
>
> One way you can create a partially exposed type is like this:
>>
>> module Test exposing (Test(One))
>>
>> type Test
>> = One
>> | Two
>>
>
> Thanks, it wasn't the kind of "partial" exposure I had in mind but good
> to know in case I have this kind of need some time.
>
What is the difference between your code and this extracted from
elm-style-animation:
module Animation.Model exposing (..)
type Animation msg
= Animation
{ steps : List (Step msg)
, style : List Property
, timing : Timing
, running : Bool
, interruption : List ( Time, List (Step msg) )
}
module Animation
exposing
( ...
, State
, ...
)
{-| _Note_ - The compiler will refer to your `Animation.State` as
`Animation.Model.Animation msg`
-}
type alias State =
Animation.Model.Animation Never
Did calling the type and its alias both 'Test' somehow override the private
one with the public one?
--
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.
