That was what V2 was. Didn't work out that well compared to V3
Conversation
🤦♂️ - so how does one write tuples now? Is the syntax overloaded with function abstraction?
1
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
The Elm-style syntax for Reason is just called OCaml.
1
1
5
OCaml has its types inline with the definition. Not really the same 🙄
I started to use
let foo : 'a -> string -> 'a list = fun x bar -> ...
which, while not as nice as Haskell, is kinda ok IMHO.
1
1
Or you can wrap with modules which have `val` type definitions, but it's verbose and not really practical.
1
Show replies