re: Elm 0.19 Broke Us 💔 VIEW POST

re: I wholeheartedly agree with this. "what should be in the language when it's done." People have been suggesting countless of things, type classe...

The implementation for these things are known, there's just no pressing need to introduce them to the compiler. There's also no consensus on what the right implementation would be.

I write Elm full time, and don't miss these things. There have been times where it would be nice to implement comparable for one of my types, but I'm not convinced that type classes is the right approach for ad-hoc polymorphism in Elm.

code of conduct - report abuse