Jeremy Pierre

I like it but it will be relatively low priority on my personal task list for the next little while (happy if someone else picks it up). Is there a...

To clarify, do you mean that it would imply we can define recursive functions in the let binding or that functions in the sequence can refer to ones previously defined...

Ah, I think I see. So in Alpaca atm all function bindings are actually `let rec` (in the Core Erlang AST) and there's no special syntax for mutually recursive functions,...

Interesting...bindings within top-level bindings in Alpaca are rewritten/renamed with synthetic/unique names but then checked for collision with bindings created later, e.g. let f () = let x = 2 in...

@OvermindDL1 @saem I missed the distinction between `open` and `include` where it sounds like the former serves almost as a sort of "default implementation" or simple inheritance mechanism. The function...

Oh definitely possible yes :) My reluctance to go this direction is an assumption that most people coming from languages other than OCaml might naturally expect functions to be essentially...

@saem that's a really great post, thanks for linking it! "Intent first" is an interesting way to put it and I think a good argument in favour of us adding...

Something like `open module.[fun1, fun2/arity]` is quite consistent with the existing function import syntax for sure and I do see the advantage in being able to pull in default implementations....

Not explicitly tbh. I'm not particularly opposed to either but it will depend on which way we jump/how we implement things like algebraic effects and a signature-module system. I think...

Thanks for filing this, definitely in the plans! It's come up a little on the [mailing list](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alpaca-lang) and is actually next up on my list after v0.2.6 :)