-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
Thoughts on replacing Proxy with VTA? #85
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Comments
Hm, maybe let
testBuilder =
( Builder.build
:: forall r
. Builder { | r } { x :: String, y :: String | r }
-> { | r }
-> { x :: String, y :: String | r }
)
( Builder.insert @"x" 42
>>> Builder.merge { y: true, z: "testing" }
>>> Builder.delete @"y"
>>> Builder.modify @"x" show
>>> Builder.rename @"z" @"y"
)
{} I thought adding the type annotation to
|
Oops, nevermind, I had forgot to make some of the type variables visible with |
There's a current/active thread on the forum discussing the guidelines we're going to use for updating libraries with VTAs, might be worth chiming in there too: https://discourse.purescript.org/t/proposal-guidelines-for-vtas/3866 |
Is there any interest in (or objection to) updating this library to use Visible Type Application syntax in place of
Proxy
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: