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! :)
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.