Simon Krajewski
Simon Krajewski
Let's please stay focused here, this is (and should be) about changes to the `Math` class itself.
Note that when I called the syntax awkward, I was referring to the `?[]` version. The `?.[]` version looks even more ridiculous to me, the point where I prefer to...
But `fn?.call()` means `(fn != null) ? fn.call() : null`.
We didn't reach a conclusion on this proposal in the haxe-evolution meeting today. There are some open questions here related to the identity and equality of such values. We agreed...
```haxe enum abstract Status(Option) to Option { final Continue = Some; final End = None; } ``` This violates the abstraction because `Some` is not `Option`, it's actually `T ->...
> Here, the two expressions has type T->Status and T->Option respectively. What I mean is that the behaviour should just be consistent with ordinary enum. I don't follow where that...
We didn't reach a conclusion on this proposal in the haxe-evolution meeting today. We feel like we should look closer into the problems that are meant to be solved here...
> We can call it Unit, but iiuc this name comes from the idea that the type has a single value. In my mind that's true because it accepts `null`.
> Void is the absence of a value; It has nothing, and cannot be used as a value. > None is a value with no meaning. It can be used...
I can't see myself accepting any more implicit casts in the Haxe language, but I'm very much in favor of operator overloading via static extensions. This is a poorly written...