Re: [elm-discuss] 0.18 Below the Hood

On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 9:30:23 AM UTC-7, Max Goldstein wrote: > > My impression is that it's a Haskell extension that's very commonly used. > In the process of upgrading, I uncommented some signatures only for the > compiler to tell me that they are incorrect, so this feature has been

Re: [elm-discuss] 0.18 Below the Hood

My impression is that it's a Haskell extension that's very commonly used. In the process of upgrading, I uncommented some signatures only for the compiler to tell me that they are incorrect, so this feature has been useful already. Oh, and almost forgot: flipping the argument order for

Re: [elm-discuss] 0.18 Below the Hood

On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 8:57:30 AM UTC-7, John Orford wrote: > > let-bound values can be given type annotations that reference type > variables from the top level > > that's v thoughtful actually, I hadn't heard that before, just local > variables in any case, makes a lot of sense for

Re: [elm-discuss] 0.18 Below the Hood

> let-bound values can be given type annotations that reference type variables from the top level that's v thoughtful actually, I hadn't heard that before, just local variables in any case, makes a lot of sense for tricky functions. is this an elm specific creation or do you also see it in

[elm-discuss] 0.18 Below the Hood

I'm personally looking forward to three longstanding bugs being fixed. First, recursive definitions like x = x are caught by the compiler. Second, a bug caching compiled forms of modules has been resolved, forcing a rebuild when necessary. Finally, let-bound values can be given type annotations

[elm-discuss] 0.18 Below the Hood

Can anyone add to the headline features in the blog? *http://elm-lang.org/blog/the-perfect-bug-report * Just want to geek out, but too lazy to follow / look at Elm dev. Happy Elm Day. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to