re: The basic Elm example that I wish I'd had VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

Great post! So after this exercise, do you think making Model into a pure Custom Type is the way to go for larger projects? Or is this only suitable for small demos? (As opposed to the "traditional" Elm Model, which is a record made up of many types and custom types.)

 

Also, looking at it more carefully... how is the top-level DisplayingRoom type defined? I'm sure that's a ridiculously basic question...

 

Ah I think my wording has probably confused matters - Model is the custom type, DisplayingRoom and Failure are values that custom type can have. (These are known as type variants)

DoorState and AlarmState are also custom types.

This might help clarify things a little:

Consider Bool - that is a type that can have a value of either True or False, and would be represented (and I imagine probably actually is represented in the source code!) as:

type Bool 
  = True
  | False

Does that answer your question? :)

Ooohh yes, that makes perfect sense! A custom type can have any... custom... values you make up, they don't have to be defined separately anywhere else. I get it now. My mental block was that I was still thinking of the Model type as a record, just because it was named Model. LOL.

I guess I'm starting to see why "custom types" is a better name than "union types" (what they used to be in 0.18). Thanks for the update to 0.19!

Glad that helped! I can totally see how that caused confusion.

And yeah, I think the change of naming convention from union to custom is a big positive. Custom type is a phrase that can be easily understood without even having any real understanding of the language at all! :)

 

Thanks! <3

I'm by no means an expert in Elm, so it's difficult for me to say for certain (although I'm currently working on a larger Elm application and I'm sure I'll come out of that with more thoughts!), but my current thought on this is that yes, I do prefer the idea of the Model being a Custom Type as opposed to a record. The main thing I kept coming up against when having the model be a record was that it seemed like every separate view ended up having information (or at least theoretical access to information) that it just didn't need - it could very well be that I wasn't organising my models very well, but since making this change in my own code things have felt easier to deal with and reason about.

Again, my thoughts on this in future might change, but as of right now (which is after all when you're asking :D ) I think that this approach is helpful for reasoning about the application itself - if your Model is always describing the state of your application, then it feels likely that this will make life easier for anyone maintaining your application in the future - something I think we should all be careful to consider.

 

Slight update: After adding navigation into another application, which meant needing to add a navigation key, I've ended up re-evaluating this at the moment. Although all I've done is added any globally-available info to the model, and kept the state the way I described earlier:

-- MODEL


type alias Model =
    { key : Nav.Key
    , state : State
    }


type State
    = ViewSignUp SignUpData
    | ViewLogin LoginData
    | ViewPasswordReset PasswordResetData
    | Loading

And it's still the state that drives the UI itself:

-- VIEW


view : Model -> Document Msg
view model =
    case model.state of
        Loading ->
            { title = "Some app"
            , body = [ loadingView ]
            }

        ViewSignUp data ->
            let
                signUpView =
                    Html.map (\x -> SignUpMsg x) <| SignUp.view data
            in
            { title = "Sign up to Some app"
            , body = [ signUpView ]
            }

        ViewLogin data ->
            let
                loginView =
                    Html.map (\x -> LoginMsg x) <| Login.view data
            in
            { title = "Log in to Some app"
            , body = [ loginView ]
            }

        ViewPasswordReset data ->
            let
                forgottenPasswordView =
                    Html.map (\x -> PasswordResetMsg x) <| PasswordReset.view data
            in
            { title = "Request a password reset"
            , body = [ forgottenPasswordView ]
            }

 

I do like this better. Somehow it feels a little "forced" to make the model as one giant custom type. With this type of edit, you can still model your door/alarm states elegantly and completely with a big custom type, and get all the benefits of that. But other stuff in the model (like navigation key or login status) that doesn't have anything to do with the door state can live separately, as a different piece of the model record.

code of conduct - report abuse