You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There is an existing tuple expression for morphs (using "=>"), but it accepts a function as the second param.
.to is a helpful sugar that allows providing a validated definition, but there's no way to provide a validated definition to the expression, which could be helpful especially for inlining defs in a scope.
I'd like to determine what that would look like- either an extension of "=>" with an alternate index 2 shape letting us know it's a definition, or a new operator.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There is an existing tuple expression for morphs (using
"=>"
), but it accepts a function as the second param..to
is a helpful sugar that allows providing a validated definition, but there's no way to provide a validated definition to the expression, which could be helpful especially for inlining defs in a scope.I'd like to determine what that would look like- either an extension of
"=>"
with an alternate index 2 shape letting us know it's a definition, or a new operator.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: