For my own development I generally stick with the more brute force approach the author starts with. let foo = failwith "nyi". I don’t know I’d switch to the shorter solution or not, I haven’t found doing the failwith approach to be a bottleneck in development.
Yeah, it seems like a little bit of a complex trick to achieve such a small programming convenience. I do a similar thing all the time with Haskell’s undefined and don’t find it troublesome.
For my own development I generally stick with the more brute force approach the author starts with.
let foo = failwith "nyi". I don’t know I’d switch to the shorter solution or not, I haven’t found doing thefailwithapproach to be a bottleneck in development.Yeah, it seems like a little bit of a complex trick to achieve such a small programming convenience. I do a similar thing all the time with Haskell’s
undefinedand don’t find it troublesome.This is hole driven development, which GHC is going to have actual support for in the future. It’s going to be awesome!
To be clear, I’m already using 7.8.3. To be doubly clear—if you are too, then replace
undefinedwith_. It’s awesome!(Not actually directed at puffnfresh who I’m certain already knows this.)