I agree that automatic serialization/deserialization of union types is orthogonal to this idea, but I am default interested in any language simplification!
Ignoring ctor implications, here are my initial thoughts on that idea on its own merits: - These union type constructors are functions - The consensus is that curried is nicer than tupled for Elm functions on the whole - Why would the opposite be true for these particular functions? I don't have a good answer for that, which makes me lean toward the status quo. That said, automatic serialization/deserialization of union types would be nice. :) -- 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.
