Could this be a feature of the text editor? i.e. a marginal annotation
indicating the function is exposed, based on the module's signature at the
top of the file?
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Robin Heggelund Hansen wrote:
> Yeah, I assumed this would be a preference thing. However, for me the
Yeah, I assumed this would be a preference thing. However, for me the
question is never "What does this module expose" but "is this function
private and public?" and the fact that I have to go to the top of the file
and scan a list to see if that's the case is a minor inconvenience when it
coul
Ditto.
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 10:00:18 AM UTC-6, Rex van der Spuy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 3:44:30 AM UTC-4, Robin Heggelund Hansen
> wrote:
>>
>> There's one thing that has always bothered me with Haskell, and now also
>> Elm, and that is how functions are exposed. My p
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 3:44:30 AM UTC-4, Robin Heggelund Hansen wrote:
>
> There's one thing that has always bothered me with Haskell, and now also
> Elm, and that is how functions are exposed. My problem with the way it
> currently works is that you have go to the top of the file to see/
