Extra parens. No ideal for some but again to be clear: there's no syntax ambiguity in the new version
Conversation
Oh dear…
Well I guess it remains to be seen whether the folks start hating it after the initial honeymoon period. How easy is it to explain `(f(x) >> f())` to people? (using Elm/F# composition operators /w tupled args here)
1
1
There's some annoyance after "honeymoon" period, but it's mostly about additional parens being hard to track with eyes - no complaints related to semantics.
1
We'll reduce the number of parens we print to mitigate that issue and then reevaluate how many problems the tuples being (like, this) still cause.
1
I do need to keep my pre-existing biases in check here too, and it's good you're having a go at challenging the status quo.
1
How hard would it be to create an alternate, Elm-style syntax for Reason? As somebody who writes a great deal of Rust, I kind of feel type signatures on top make much more sense for a type-driven programming style, as does dropping parens. Makes the code much cleaner and lighter.
3
1
1
Sweet. Would be interesting to see how people react to comparisons if they could easily switch between them!
3
Easiest of course is going to be an s-expression based alternative syntax because the parsers/printers are so darn trivial to write.
2
2
Agreed. Haskell/F#-style layout syntax is a bit of a pain to implement, even though it looks damn pretty.