On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:08:13 PM UTC+1, Christophe de Vienne wrote: > > I should have had a better look at what elmq allowed indeed. > > That said until elmq (or something equivalent) is published on > package.elm-lang.org, we get a non-publishable package. >
Yes, it would make your package non-publishable too. > I will make some tests with now that the plain version is working > properly. > Would be interesting to see if elmq has enough features to support your use case, or if it needs some extension. I think gathering use cases, reviewing what other language do and so on is the work that needs to be done prior to proposing adding it as a supported effects module. Also, nice that you did it without an effects module, as that is one more example to compare the code with/without elmq, if you were to redo it on top of elmq. I'm going to the upcoming Elm Europe conference, so I can talk to the core devs there and see what they think of it. As I said before, perhaps its not an 'architectural' direction that they like; on the other hand it does seem both simple and useful. -- 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.
