Yeah, that was something I realized recently, though changing it requires a major version bump. Should be changed in the next version though! (Along with a bunch of other goodies that will come along with it.)
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 1:02:41 PM UTC-5, Matthieu Pizenberg wrote: > > Did calling the type and its alias both 'Test' somehow override the >> private one with the public one? >> > > No actually it is misleading you here. The main difference is that when I > write: > > -- module Test exposing (testFunction) > import Public exposing (Test) > import Private > testFunction : Test > testFunction = Private.SomeTest > > `Test` in `testFunction` type definition refers to `Public.Test`. It is > the same as writing: > > -- module Test exposing (testFunction) > import Public > import Private > testFunction : Public.Test > testFunction = Private.SomeTest > > whereas everywhere in elm-style-animation, mdgriffith is defining its > functions with the `Animation.Model.Animation msg` return type instead of > using the `State` public type: > > initialState : List Animation.Model.Property -> Animation msg > > Technically both types are the same (well not exactly since he defined > State as Animation *Never*) and both could compile (not here because of > this Never). But for public interface, I think that type definitions should > use the public types. > -- 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.
