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

Clarify (==) Json.Encode.Value limitations #951

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@osteele

osteele commented Mar 15, 2018

The documentation for (==) implied (to me) that (==) would work on
Json.Encode.Values that didn't include functions. This is not the case.
This change attempts to clarify this. It doesn't go into exact detail
about the failure cases (one order works, another doesn't), because it
seemed like this had to do with implementation details that are better
not relied on; instead, it attempts to steer the reader away for using
(==) on Json.Encode.Values at all.

See https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/json-encode-value-equality/898
for discussion.

Clarify (==) Json.Encode.Value limitations
The documentation for (==) implied (to me) that (==) would work on
Json.Encode.Values that didn't include functions. This is not the case.
This change attempts to clarify this. It doesn't go into exact detail
about the failure cases (one order works, another doesn't), because it
seemed like this had to do with implementation details that are better
not relied on; instead, it attempts to steer the reader away for using
(==) on Json.Encode.Values at all.

See <https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/json-encode-value-equality/898>
for discussion.
@process-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@process-bot

process-bot Mar 15, 2018

Thanks for the pull request! Make sure it satisfies this checklist. My human colleagues will appreciate it!

Here is what to expect next, and if anyone wants to comment, keep these things in mind.

process-bot commented Mar 15, 2018

Thanks for the pull request! Make sure it satisfies this checklist. My human colleagues will appreciate it!

Here is what to expect next, and if anyone wants to comment, keep these things in mind.

@osteele

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@osteele

osteele Mar 15, 2018

It doesn't look like the CI failure elm-make: elm-package.json: openBinaryFile: does not exist (No such file or directory) is caused by this doc-only change.

osteele commented Mar 15, 2018

It doesn't look like the CI failure elm-make: elm-package.json: openBinaryFile: does not exist (No such file or directory) is caused by this doc-only change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment