On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Charles Scalfani <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adding this to the language feels like how other languages evolve, which > is haphazardly. > > I rather see a more general solution to this problem via some type of > constraint-based type. For example, imagine you can define something as > *String* but with a constraint that limits the values they can contain. > This would solve all current problems we have with using types as Enums. > We'd have exhaustive case statements checking and since it's already a > String converting to String is unnecessary. > A general solution would bring its own set of issues as all general solutions tend to be abused. As such, a general solution needs way way more thought and design. Anyway, I'm not arguing that what I said above is necessarily a good idea. I haven't given it that much thought. All I say is that it is one conceivable way. The main advantage I see is that the language doesn't really change, it's just a convention that turns some already expressible types into something that can do a little bit more. -- There is NO FATE, we are the creators. blog: http://damoc.ro/ -- 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.
