Jeremy Pierre

> errors/etc are returned by the call. Agreed, I don't think this should be changed, went too far in my list above perhaps. It's possible of course we might want...

Great question/point, thanks! I've had some related thoughts around a kind of opaque/foreign type, e.g. for saying "this value coming back is type `x` and Alpaca code can't inspect it,...

> I could see some unions needing qualification and some not being confusing I think it's more an issue for the type inferencer than anything else to be honest. Some...

> It would be my preference for there to be as few extra rules to remember in the language I tend to agree. Unqualified vs qualified (or untagged vs tagged)...

I think we're now moving a little into the realm of https://github.com/alpaca-lang/alpaca/issues/7 here but that's probably a good thing. I'm not super keen on an unqualified "trust me" but a...

All of the above works for me :)

This could be good, potentially some similarities and/or overlap with @lepoetemaudit's repl/shell work too.

@ericbmerritt thanks for the feedback! So something like #2 with a `try` or `either` type and some basic BIFs for working with them cleanly perhaps. I'm not sure yet that...

Makes sense, thanks again! Infix syntax is something I need to think more about as well. I've been entirely avoiding the definition of functions with operator-like names as I've seen...

Interesting read. My take so far is roughly along the lines of "nothing built-in for now and make sure ADTs stay simple" :) I think at a minimum it will...