On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:06:44 AM UTC-4, Oliver Searle-Barnes wrote:
>
> What if unsafe because a first class concept in Elm? You could mark
> functions as "unsafe". Any function that calls an unsafe function would
> also be required to be declared as unsafe e.g.
>
I use Elm entirely
Seems like mostly semantics, but ok I'll take your criticisms.
However, I didn't realize that Http had `toTask`. Thanks for letting me
know that. :)
I'm still not using Http because I'm not wasting my time maintaining
encoders/decoders. And since I have to go out to a port, I'm just using a
Sorry, but there were many wrong / half truths in here, so I had to respond
;)
Elm does not allow user code to do side effects
>
This is wrong, that's what Task and ultimately Cmd are for. It's true that
there is no way to do *uncontrolled* side effects, e.g. a function that
sends an https
The landscape as I see it: Elm does not allow user code to do side effects
(i.e. communication/IO). In Haskell, a function with side-effects is marked
as "unsafe" if it declares IO in it's signature e.g. `readFileText: string
-> IO string`. Since front-end IO is somewhat narrow in what is
Hi Oliver,
Your code sample looks very similar
to
https://github.com/eirslett/elm-task-port-example/blob/master/example/Main.elm
That's a repo related to proposal on adding `Task-based ports`. They were
proposed more than once already, but I'm not aware of any opinion on the
subject in the
