Closed FayCarsons closed 5 months ago
I don't think we should have this - this feels somewhat more stateful and can be done with lists. I don't want us to commit to maintaining functionality that can be achieved easily without this library.
I don't think we should have this - this feels somewhat more stateful and can be done with lists. I don't want us to commit to maintaining functionality that can be achieved easily without this library.
If you do this with a list, transformations won't be applied uniformly.
Users cannot extract the list of shapes out of a complex shape to do operations on it. Creating a complex shape, transforming it, and then adding a new shape to it will be impossible without this. I thought that may be nice functionality to have. And it's entirely stateless.
Realized this is the logical negation operator and also that this can be achieved by nesting complex shapes. Closing
I thought it may be nice to be able to
cons
new shapes onto already constructed complex shapes, so I added an infix operator<>
(borrowed from Haskell). I would be fine with renaming it and making it prefix, but this is what I liked.