Add xt functions to coerce to PureScript Tuples
#2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
These functions may be more convenient to work with than raw `prj`
calls.
`xt` converts to a Data.Tuple pair.
`xtN` converts to a Data.Tuple.Nested structure.
An example usage is provided in the README and test.
|
Oh shoot I'm sorry, I haven't been on slack in a hot minute! I'll try to be more active there. Anyway, let me just review these changes so we can get this merged! |
athanclark
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2020
|
Fab, thanks for approving that :-) |
|
NP! The documentation should be up to date with v2.1.0, and there's a PR to get it updated with spago - purescript/package-sets#661 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These functions may be more convenient to work with than raw
prjcalls.
An example usage is provided in the README and test.
(I'm on #purescript Slack, and have pinged you there. Happy to discuss if I'm missing a simpler way to do this / this isn't the approach you want to take, etc. and I can help rework!)