| ▲ | ffsm8 6 hours ago | |
> MyStructure -> [MyElements] Right, from the structure you get an array with one element which is likely an union type from that naming. Honestly, you sound more like your arguing from the perspective of a person unwilling to learn new things, considering you couldn't even get that type correct. To begin with, that flat signature wasn't even hard to understand? | ||
| ▲ | wk_end 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
What I wrote would be a syntax error in TypeScript (no name for the argument, wrong arrow), not a function that returns array with one element; I used Haskell-ish notation instead of TypeScript's more verbose "(structure: MyStructure) => MyElement[]". I thought it was clear enough that I was being informal and what I meant was clear, but that was admittedly probably a mistake. But to infer an implication from that that I'm "unwilling to learn new things" is a non sequitur and honestly kind of an unnecessarily dickish accusation. | ||
| ▲ | lovich 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Brah, If you have a type with that many characters in it that isn’t a super long string name, it’s not easy to understand unless you are the 1% of 1% when it comes to interpreting this specific language. On top of that I fully agree with the poster you’re responding to. In general application code that’s and extremely complicated type, generally done by someone being as clever as can be. And if the code you’ve written when you’re being as clever as possible has a bug in it, you won’t be clever enough to debug it. | ||