Improve ElmJson types
#182
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Ooops. I accidentally used ESM syntax. I'll fix that when I get a minute. |
|
|
lishaduck
force-pushed
the
better-elm-json-types
branch
from
2278796 to
493059c
Compare
A tuple could reduce overhead, but string'll do for now.
jfmengels
force-pushed
the
better-elm-json-types
branch
from
493059c to
aa53240
Compare
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Depends on #175.
Here's the diff as GH doesn't play well with stacks from forks: lishaduck/node-elm-review@bump-turbo...better-elm-json-types