I'd agree with all that - but it was also trivially achievable in 0.17. Make no mistake, this is a *reduction* of the Elm language, the gamble being that it will result in more new users moving to and sticking with Elm, than existing users bailing in favour of some other alternative. I suspect it will probably work.
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 12:15:13 UTC, Witold Szczerba wrote: > > I really like the change (getting rid of an exceptional syntax), but > what's more important is how other things adapts: see the example > provided by Joey: > >For example, if you want the range [0 .. n] for n in [0 .. k]: > > > > Old syntax: > > map (\x -> [0 .. x]) [0 .. k] > > New syntax: > > map (Range 0) (Range 0 k) > > OK, it's just very simple piece of code, imagine something more > sophisticated… You can partially apply a function, but not the range > syntax. In functional languages like Elm, the more you have is nothing but > a normal function the better, other "building" blocks just get in the way. > > Regards, > Witold Szczerba > > > > -- 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.
