--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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...@googlegroups.com.
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The backtick syntax is neat, but ultimately, it is redundant. In practice, it is recommended against in every case, with the one exception of andThen.
The only situation where backticks are useful is when you are doing a single function call, and "foo `function` bar" is easier to read than "function foo bar". I haven't seen this crop up too many times. But if it does, "foo |> function bar" is just as good.
--
Nick, can you elaborate on why you think that my statement that foo `function` bar
corresponds to bar |> function foo
rather than foo |> function bar
is wrong?
That said I agree with most of what's been said here. The place I'll miss primes the most is actually the grammatical possessive: root'sValue, etc. But that's not a huge deal.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.
-- Phil Karlton
Sometimes piping is not always possible.Let's say we want to deconstruct a tuple, pass its first item to some other function and then compare the "old" and the "new" version of it.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
[<Test>]
let ``Test that roman numerals have no more than one V``() = ...
Primes I'll miss for convenience, like when naming an inner tail-recursion function to distinguish it from its wrapper. But it's not a big deal.
let rle list = let rec aux count acc = function | [] -> [] (* Can only be reached if original list is empty *) | [x] -> (x, count + 1) :: acc | a :: (b :: _ as t) -> if a = b then aux (count + 1) acc t else aux 0 ((a, count + 1) :: acc) t
inaux 0 [] list
On Oct 19, 2016, at 2:59 AM, John Orford <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
I am coming around to the make things as easy as possible for newbs approach.Elm is a big jump for people coming from JS, every little helps, including removing string syntax misinterpretations.
Having said that, I suspect a total programming newcomer would find Elm right now easier than JS…
Yeah but it does beg the question whethertype''should become type__