Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:38 PM, 'Andrew Radford' via Elm Discuss < elm-discuss@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I agree with you there. I'm just pointing out that calling this a > community decision is misrepresenting things. > What would a community decision look like to you (procedurally)? -- You

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

I agree with you there. I'm just pointing out that calling this a community decision is misrepresenting things. On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:04:27 UTC, Duane Johnson wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:23 PM, 'Andrew Radford' via Elm Discuss < > elm-d...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> No,

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

> > What do you think about my suggestion in previous reply ? replacing > List.range with List.(..) operator ? Forgive me if somebody has already pointed this out, but it is very easy to write such a function yourself. (..) : Int -> Int -> List Int > (..) a b = List.range a b > If this is

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:23 PM, 'Andrew Radford' via Elm Discuss < elm-discuss@googlegroups.com> wrote: > No, it wasn't. Some parts of the community were aware of it, but calling > it a community decision is overstating it. While I wish it were otherwise, my experience from other communities

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

No, it wasn't. Some parts of the community were aware of it, but calling it a community decision is overstating it. On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 15:30:52 UTC, Robin Heggelund Hansen wrote: > > This was very much a community decision > -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

It was indeed: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elm-discuss/ehtYLofp3TE Responses ranged from "I'd rather get rid of it" to "I like it, but I wouldn't complain if it went away." There was also a lovely tangent about Hoogle. Nobody was worried at that time that changing the syntax would

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

I seem to remember that the discussion to keep or remove range syntax was done here on the mailing list, and a lot of people had no hard feelings about it going away. This was very much a community decision. tirsdag 15. november 2016 16.19.54 UTC+1 skrev Andrew Radford følgende: > > I don't

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

I don't think flippantly dismissing anyone who abandons Elm as having a tenuous connection is fair. A lot of existing users, especially long time users who when they started, may have done so because of the 'niceties' like this, and they are now being slowly eroded. Maybe you could say they

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

If someone was so tenuously commuted to Elm that this syntax removal drives them away, oh well. Yes, the Elm language is getting smaller. That's been true for a few releases now. Evan is trying to remove hurdles for new users (because we need a lot of new users!), not preserve legacy code (Elm

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

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

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

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)

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

Lists are pretty core, I don't really have a problem with short expressive syntax that reads well. 'Well' meaning closer to reading like English. i.e I'd never say "I'll drink Bourbon on the range of days from 1 to 3, then Scotch on the days that range from day 4 to day 7". No way, it's just

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

It's also worth mentioning that adding syntax for something usually indicates that it's a "core" feature. In C-like languages, looping from integers in a range is the key iteration structure. But in Elm, fold and map are much more important. So having special syntax could give beginners the idea

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

Yup. It is just not used often enough to warrant special syntax. On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Witold Szczerba wrote: > I think List.range is just fine. No need for special syntax and strange > function names like ".." (hard to browse, find online, etc.). > > On Mon,

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

I think List.range is just fine. No need for special syntax and strange function names like ".." (hard to browse, find online, etc.). On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:29 PM, أحمد حبنكة wrote: > What do you think about my suggestion in previous reply ? replacing > List.range

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

What do you think about my suggestion in previous reply ? replacing List.range with List.(..) operator ? بتاريخ الاثنين، 14 نوفمبر، 2016 2:43:49 ص UTC+2، كتب Max Goldstein: > > Sometimes it's useful to pass arguments to List.range and have it be empty > when a > b. > > Perhaps there should be

[elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

hmmm I agree, if we want to make it a function though then we can replace the `List.range` function with `..` operator and construct ranges like this `1..2` (no need for brackets) This is how it's done in ruby and it's a function :) , the range syntax removal is acceptable in this situation

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

Not really, with familiar symbols, you can construct very unreadable things. On Sunday, 13 November 2016 22:32:12 UTC, Francesco Orsenigo wrote: > > What do you mean with "suits best"? > Readability is largely a matter of familiarity. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

The _real_ question is why List.Range only increments, List.Range 5 1 = [ ] On Monday, 14 November 2016 09:32:12 UTC+11, Francesco Orsenigo wrote: > > What do you mean with "suits best"? > Readability is largely a matter of familiarity. > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:21 AM, 'Andrew Radford' via

[elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

Why would you want two different (and entirely equivalent) solutions to the same problem? On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:37:34 AM UTC+11, Andrew Radford wrote: > > Yeah It would be great if there was [x..y] and Range > >> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

[elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

Yeah It would be great if there was [x..y] and Range On Sunday, 13 November 2016 19:04:52 UTC, Robin Heggelund Hansen wrote: > > Fixing the docs could of course be done, and you're right, it's not > something that's hard to understand. However, the question you should be > asking is "is there

[elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

Fixing the docs could of course be done, and you're right, it's not something that's hard to understand. However, the question you should be asking is "is there any reason why range isn't a function to begin with?" søndag 13. november 2016 16.58.32 UTC+1 skrev أحمد حبنكة følgende: > > > >

[elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

بتاريخ الأحد، 13 نوفمبر، 2016 1:53:05 ص UTC+2، كتب أحمد حبنكة: > > I was reading the elm-dev list and I knew that elm 0.18 removed the range > syntax, so code like this : > [2..3] > won't work anymore. > > I want to know what are the foundations behind this decision ? > hmmm if it is "can't

Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

> > it's also not as flexible as a regular function > 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) Not much savings in terms of length, but one less lambda, since it turns into a partial

[elm-discuss] Re: Why Range syntax got removed in favor of List.range

I remember Evan said that range syntax was one of the things he was asked most about from new coders. Not only "what's this?" but also "how do I make a range, I couldn't find anything in the documentation." Then one comes to realize that there are other problems with range syntax. In addition