David Chambers
David Chambers
> But this will require programming style that uses Classes, and I want static-land to support style based on simple objects. Would this still be possible? Could one define `constructor`...
> Plus laws specified as code as well. I've been working on fantasyland/fantasy-laws#1, which is somewhat related.
> It will look a lot like replacing Fantasy Land with Static Land If the benefits are laid out clearly and a migration path is presented, I expect this change...
> The primary advantage of defining algebraic data types like we did above, is good console logs. The best option may be to define an [`inspect`][1] method, as we do...
> Note that the Fantasy Land specification requires that the `constructor` point to the type representative instead of the constructor, which means that it can't be used for pattern matching....
Scheduled released have been proposed in the past, but I haven't yet been convinced of the benefits. > I think old issues/PRs could/should at some point be closed I agree....
I'm not suggesting shenanigans. I'm in favour of swapping the order of the arguments. One can easily write `x < y` if both values are known, so these functions are...
`divide` and `subtract`, absolutely! `concat` I'm not sure about. I do like the fact that `R.reduce(R.concat, '', ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'])` evaluates to `'foobarbaz'`.
`S.reduce (S.or) (false)` is what I used instead.