Skip to content

Parametric types concept draft #916

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 28 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

colinleach
Copy link
Contributor

It's fairly preliminary at this stage. I'm hoping to wrangle elm/treasure-chest into an exercise that can pair with it.

Colin Leach added 27 commits April 2, 2025 15:14
Comment on lines 12 to 13
Only `primitive` types follow the abstract versus concrete pattern in its simple form.
`Vector` is a collection, separable into elements with their own type.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like this transition is a bit abrupt. A possible way to make more of a connection could be something like:

Collections, such as Vector or Set (which are not primitive types), are separable into elements with their own type.

That said, I feel like the second part of this sentence ("...are separable into elements...) becomes redundant with the two sentences following the example, starting with:

A collection of what?

If the second part of the sentence were omitted, I could see the sentence being rephrased to something like:

One example of types which are not primitive are Collections, such as Vector or Set.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants