On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Brian Hicks <br...@brianthicks.com> wrote:
> It makes sense (at least to me) that this isn't supported. Elm has a much > different type system than JavaScript. > I respectfully disagree. It makes sense to focus on other issues that are more important BUT, people are having enough troubles with boilerplate introduced by decoders that this could easily be considered a priority. The fact that Elm and JS have vastly different type systems is irrelevant. JS wanting to talk with Elm through ports could conceivably use the proper encoding or some kind of help functions that would create the proper types. It makes very little sense to force programmers to write code about something that the compiler already knows. Sure, keep the encoding and decoding libraries for situations when custom processing is required BUT, if the marshaling process can be automated, it should be automated. -- There is NO FATE, we are the creators. blog: http://damoc.ro/ -- 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.
