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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
