@Bob H & @Andrew R: Thank you. @Janis: It's likely that we could continue to produce extensions/refactors to each other's examples for eternity (which isn't a bad thing, I don't think this is a waste of time at all). In the case of such a `munge` in your example, yeah, following a "factor out common behaviour" maxim, I'd default to a new (likely non-exported) function as I did here: https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/621#issuecomment-103349671
@Richard F: >> That said, conflict breeds evolution and improvement. > It also slows down projects. If Evan spent time seriously considering every possible syntax improvement, Elm still wouldn't even have a virtual DOM system. Slippery slope. Wanting to not rock the boat under any circumstance creates echo chambers. Honest question: Do you know if Evan believes that conceding on `where` would mean "opening the floodgates", and he's concerned he'd never hear the end of proposals for improvements (from "the Haskell people" or otherwise)? > This is not a pain point for the overwhelming majority of the Elm community If the "target audience" is JS devs who have never heard of `where`, then of course it isn't, because they don't know what they're missing. We've seen a few non-Haskell Elm users here say "hey I'd like that". -- 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.
