I think https://github.com/elm-lang/error-message-catalog/issues is the
place for the error message.
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:56:05 PM UTC+1, Nick H wrote:
>
> Please do not make a new thread to list them all. Most of them are likely
> to have been brought up before.
>
> The most useful pl
Thanks Luke. I'm looking forward to the detailed written explanation!
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:14:33 AM UTC+1, Luke Westby wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> I wanted to share on here some code that I discussed at the July Elm
> Remote Meetup about rendering Elm to a hardware device.
>
> All the co
Coming from https://github.com/elm-lang/error-message-catalog/issues/135,
I'd like to know what you think we could do about ambiguous uses of e.g.
`toString`. For instance:
1. I was using elm-integer, which has its own `toString` function for
its massive integers, and I called it on an e
Just to be clear, in 1. I did `toString Integer`, expecting that to call
elm-integer's toString, not Basic.toString.
In the first bullet point, I meant to say "...even though `toString
Integer` is valid...".
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:04:23 PM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
ror
> about the duplication?
>
> This sounds unexpected. Do you have a SSCCE showing this kind of problem?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Will White > wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear, in 1. I did `toString Integer`, expecting that to call
&g
Max, I can't find this issue.
There's https://github.com/elm-lang/error-message-catalog/issues/80 but
it's not quite the same.
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 9:29:57 PM UTC+1, Max Goldstein wrote:
>
> I think I opened an issue for this, search for author:mgold and you should
> find it. Definite
mbiguous. But because it is ambiguous, this
> code will not compile!
>
> I am sorry if I am explaining things that you already know, but I don't
> think it is clear from your OP exactly what the situation is that you are
> talking about. Could you provide us some sample cod
I've been thinking about this since... what's the purpose of `import` if
always using `import exposing` means I wouldn't have gotten into this mess?
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:07:08 PM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> Gahhh! I must have been doing just `import Data.Integer`
import ModuleWithToString
toString typeFromThatModule
Compiles with unexpected results that you have to catch.
import ModuleWithToString exposing (..)
toString typeFromThatModule
Doesn't compile: "use of toString is ambiguous: did you mean
Basics.toString or ModuleWithToString.toString?"
--
I prefer safe code to qualified imports.
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:11:21 PM UTC+1, Peter Damoc wrote:
>
> "Qualified imports are preferred."
>
> http://elm-lang.org/docs/syntax#modules
>
> I try to avoid as much as possible importing everything from a module.
> If I would have IDE support
2016 um 17:37 schrieb Will White >:
>
> I prefer safe code to qualified imports.
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:11:21 PM UTC+1, Peter Damoc wrote:
>>
>> "Qualified imports are preferred."
>>
>> http://elm-lang.org/docs/syntax#modules
>>
>
(Safe code being code where you don't have to remember to do things.)
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:48:09 PM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> You have to remember to qualify.
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:40:21 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
>>
>> In what
> least as much.
>
> Am 18.08.2016 um 17:48 schrieb Will White >:
>
> You have to remember to qualify.
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:40:21 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
>>
>> In what ways are qualified imports at odds with safe code?
>>
>&g
> least as much.
>
> Am 18.08.2016 um 17:48 schrieb Will White >:
>
> You have to remember to qualify.
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:40:21 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
>>
>> In what ways are qualified imports at odds with safe code?
>>
>&g
t the top).
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:08:01 PM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> What unexpected results? The compiler has your back if two unqualified
> functions have the same name.
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:56:50 PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
>>
>
anis Voigtländer wrote:
>
> I can’t search for the thread right now, but I’m sure you can find it
> yourself via the archive. In any case, one aspect of it (but I think there
> were more) was this: https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-make/issues/61
>
>
> 2016-08-18 17:08 GMT+02:00
search for the thread right now, but I’m sure you can find it
>> yourself via the archive. In any case, one aspect of it (but I think there
>> were more) was this: https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-make/issues/61
>>
>>
>> 2016-08-18 17:08 GMT+02:00 Will White &
Hi Thomas!
I've played the game and I'd like to give you my thoughts on the UX. I may
be able to review the code later. I wish I'd recorded my thoughts as I
played.
I ran right (it's Mario), bumped into a red wall. Ran left, same. What do I
do? Ran right, green block has appeared. Jump over it
Screenshot
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:25:24 PM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas!
>
> I've played the game and I'd like to give you my thoughts on the UX. I may
> be able to review the code later. I wish I'd recorded my thoughts as I
> played.
>
t a good idea? It seems like occasionally, but not always, using the
> namespace would make your code less readable than not doing it at all.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Will White > wrote:
>
>> I can still namespace functions with import exposing (..)
se in both cases a
> reader of the code does not need to wonder too much where any given name
> comes from.
>
> Am 18.08.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Will White >:
>
> Then I'll always namespace them. If I forget one though...
>
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6
lymorphic values
> with the same name when we don't have to.
>
> Solutions:
> * Rename Basics.toString, maybe to Basics.showAnything, or something
> similar
> * Move Basics.toString to Debug.toString, and import Debug qualified by
> default.
>
> Non-solutions:
>
It being rare means you're less likely to spot it when it happens.
Do you namespace all your Html, for example?
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:39:25 PM UTC+1, Joey Eremondi wrote:
>
> @Will White: this case is excedingly rare. For example, it's not possible
> to
Namespacing everything actually makes import redundant. No more imports if
you like to namespace everything. Then make import exposing (..) the new
import. Well up for that!
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:33:25 PM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> import ModuleWithToString
>
&
PM UTC+1, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
>
> Okay, I see the usability problem now. But I don’t think it calls for
> always importing with exposing (..). Maybe it does call for a warning to
> be issued in such situations by the compiler or by an optional code quality
> tool.
>
>
>
I have an idea that I think is nice. Make writing List.map actually *do* what
import List exposing (map) does, so you don't have to write import List at
all. And if you want to use a function without a namespace, e.g. Html,
import Html could do what import Html exposing (..) does now.
On Saturd
;
>> I had suggested something similar a while back:
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elm-discuss/qJL51Kf8C2M
>>
>> The arguments against it are still valid.
>>
>> I don't think there's widespread dissatisfaction with the import system
>> as of 0.
qJL51Kf8C2M
>
> The arguments against it are still valid.
>
> I don't think there's widespread dissatisfaction with the import system
> as of 0.17, so I doubt it will change any time soon.
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Will White > wrote:
>
>> I have an
;> namespace is a recipe for naming collisions and confusing compiler errors.
>>
>> Supposing Html.Attributes had a function called "toString" that I didn't
>> know or care about? Your proposal sounds like it will take the problem you
>> are trying to
, Will White wrote:
>
> Yes, you're right. What I should have said is that it shouldn't be
> something the programmer has to think about *until* there's a name
> collision.
>
> I've been import exposing (..) a lot, and using variable names like id
> too. I
I don't think it should be disallowed entirely. Disallowing it would make
Html and other familiar things like that harder to read, without helping
understanding.
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:10:38 AM UTC+1, Francesco Orsenigo wrote:
>
> The only issue I have with imports is that any code tha
Knowing (ahead of time) if there's someone in the class with a good idea
for an application would be gold.
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:33:04 AM UTC+1, Fedor Nezhivoi wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
>
> Evan, Richard and the whole community as well as Elm language itself do a
> great job in teachi
What about a homework diary?
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 11:43:40 AM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> Knowing (ahead of time) if there's someone in the class with a good idea
> for an application would be gold.
>
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:33:04 AM UTC+1,
I've been thinking about how I'll give a talk about Elm (at a JS event in
Nottingham, UK). To demonstrate Model-Update-View, I think I'll start with
the Counter example, but instead of in code, in real life. So I'd say "I'm
a counter, I'm on 0. Increment and Decrement me." and end up with a room
40|>Decrement ->
41|>model - 1
You need to account for the following values:
Main.Five
Add a branch to cover this pattern!
Or words to that effect.
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:36:44 AM UTC+1, Will White wrote:
>
> I've been thinking abou
I'm talking about Maybe.Just, of course. Just has always seemed strange to
me, as if it's hinting that it's something other than just the counterpart
to Nothing. I don't know the reasons behind its naming, but I think I would
prefer Something, as in "something or nothing". What do you think?
--
What's strange is that "Just 2" makes it sound like the alternative is "*more
than* Just 2", the *opposite* of Nothing.
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:16:26 PM UTC, Will White wrote:
>
> I'm talking about Maybe.Just, of course. Just has always seemed stran
Makes sense. It reads as it would be spoken.
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 6:38:16 AM UTC, Robin Heggelund Hansen
wrote:
>
> I've done some Go programming lately, and have been inspired by the way
> imports are handled. This is one of two proposals to make minor
> modifications to how imports
; are Some/None and Just/Nothing. I wonder if there are any other better
> versions out there...
>
> On Sunday, 20 November 2016 17:18:17 UTC, Will White wrote:
>>
>> What's strange is that "Just 2" makes it sound like the alternative is
>> "*more
>&
I thought “something or nothing” would be really good for quick understanding.
If Something is really too long, how about Thing (vs Nothing)? Or if noun
phrases really matter, how about Have or Got?
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 13:12, 'Andrew Radford' via Elm Discuss
> wrote:
>
> I dunno - I don't fi
y, and they should solve
> your initial confusion.
>
> søndag 20. november 2016 18.16.26 UTC+1 skrev Will White følgende:
> I'm talking about Maybe.Just, of course. Just has always seemed strange to
> me, as if it's hinting that it's something other than just the
Sorry, meant to say “I guess he’s already considered and rejected them”.
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 14:21, Will White wrote:
>
> I prefer Some or None, for understanding. Though, unless Evan didn’t know
> about them, I guess we’d already have them.
>
>> On 20 Nov 2016, at 2
t into it if I'm honest.
>
> On Monday, 21 November 2016 14:46:40 UTC, Will White wrote:
> Sorry, meant to say “I guess he’s already considered and rejected them”.
>
>> On 21 Nov 2016, at 14:21, Will White > wrote:
>>
>> I prefer Some or None, for understand
lly encountered anyone being confused by the names? I
> haven't. I think this a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Will White wrote:
>> I think that’s because you already know what Just means. I don’t think it’s
>> arbitr
I like that!
type Maybe thing = Some thing | Nothing
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 18:31, William Bailey wrote:
>
> type Maybe value = Some value | NoValue
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google
> Groups "Elm Discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this t
as one of those
> little oddities that very quickly become second nature, just wanted to point
> out that it is a slight bump in the road for newcomers.
>
>
> On Monday, 21 November 2016 18:34:05 UTC+1, Noah Hall wrote:
> Has anyone actually encountered anyone being confused b
While the grammer
> isn't spot on the semantics are very clear.
>
>
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 11:06:10 UTC+1, Will White wrote:
> weapon = Just sword doesn’t make sense for Maybe. It implies “just sword, out
> of all the weapons”. Just wouldmake sense in a Just weapon |
t;
> It still seems English is not up to this task :) We should probably just make
> up a new word, start using it day to day, then have it included in the OED.
> If it can be done for 'selfie
> <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/selfie>', then we could do
The fact that you have to have a way of making sense of it is exactly my point.
I think if it was Thing a | Nothing you wouldn’t have to do this to understand
it.
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 22:01, Erkal Selman wrote:
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about this issue, but here is why Just makes
> s
Things" which makes more sense with the semantics
of Maybe and which makes more sense to the uninitiated listener.
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:16:26 PM UTC, Will White wrote:
>
> I'm talking about Maybe.Just, of course. Just has always seemed strange to
> me, as if it&#
“those will go from a series of No’s to a series of Yes’s” would also make
sense.
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:42, Will White wrote:
>
> This is what it comes down to for me:
>
> Richard F talking about Maybes: https://youtu.be/IcgmSRJHu_8?t=9m21s
>
> He says "thos
“Nopes to Yeps” Thanks Mark.
> On 1 Dec 2016, at 07:25, Will White wrote:
>
> “those will go from a series of No’s to a series of Yes’s” would also make
> sense.
>
>> On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:42, Will White > <mailto:will.n.wh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
Hi Conner. I'm interested in working on the debugger in this way, for starters:
https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-make/issues/138
Having a great visualisation of what's going on could come after, and by then
I'd like to help with it, but it might be just fine as it is. Would you like to
help wit
+12 works as "positive 12" in English, so why not in Elm? It's intuitive
that `-12` means -12, so it follows that `+12` could well mean 12. This
isn't unprecedented (Scala and Java).
Following this discussion (below) on Slack #beginners, I think that `+12`
should be interpreted by Elm the same
Also JavaScript.
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:35:30 AM UTC, Will White wrote:
>
> +12 works as "positive 12" in English, so why not in Elm? It's intuitive
> that `-12` means -12, so it follows that `+12` could well mean 12. This
> isn't unprecedented (Sca
If part of the purpose is to raise Elm's profile with people who haven't
seen the logo before then I'd suggest including "Elm" or "elm-lang" in the
sticker too, so they have something to look up if they don't ask you what
it is.
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 11:55:14 PM UTC, hsw wrote:
>
>
>
See
also
http://faq.elm-community.org/#what-is-the-difference-between-type-and-type-alias.
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:24:50 AM UTC, Joey Eremondi wrote:
>
> Use type alias when you want an abbreviation for a long type name. If you
> don't want to write List (Dict String SomeVal) over an
For continuation of this
thread: https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/621
--
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...@goog
Continued from https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/621.
--
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
The debugger has the model, msg and the new model. So if you tell it that
the new model is indeed the expected return value from update msg model, it
can write that test for you. To use Counter as an example:
model = 0
update msg model =
case msg of
Up ->
model + 1
Down ->
ould do something where you have a working version of your code,
> and you generate a set of tests and save it, and then use it as regression
> tests later on to make sure you don't accidentally change the behaviour of
> your program, but that's more complicated. Is that t
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:32:58 AM UTC, Rupert Smith wrote:
>
> How would you gather the test cases?
>
Just to tell the whole story, the idea came to me as I was testing my code
manually (compiling code, playing with the app, making sure the app was
doing what I expected it to do... no wri
`in... let...` is either a perfect stepping stone, or if the idea of
`let... in...` is that's "it's like in academic papers", it's an
abomination for which `where` would be a better fit. Unless `in... let...`
*is* in academic papers, of course!
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 2:20:09 AM UTC, dou
I also found this (for reference
here): https://mixandgo.com/blog/writing-a-chrome-extension-with-elm
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:34:23 AM UTC, Rich Morin wrote:
>
> I have a browser extension I want to write and I'm wondering how hard it
> would be to do so in Elm. Can anyone point me to
64 matches
Mail list logo
