Add blogpost about uncurried mode #714
Conversation
| ```rescript | ||
| (. param) => () | ||
| ``` | ||
| * As ReScript could not fully statically analyze when to automatically uncurry a function over multiple files, it led to unnecessary `Curry.` calls in the emitted JavaScript code. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we can clearly state here than function calls in uncurried mode are now guarantied to get compiled as simple JS function calls, which is quite nice for readability of the generated JS code but also for performance (even though it was not that significant) and sometimes even correctness when applied on bindings (Curry sometimes badly played with this and other JS features we don't care about in rescript).
Not sure it's worth being publicized but now you can even bind classes to simple rescript records which are sometimes much nicer to use than using an opaque type and a function:
myLogger->Logger.info("foo")
// vs
myLogger.info("foo")There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. I am not sure about the class suggestion either. I only added your first point.
function calls in uncurried mode are now guarantied to get compiled as simple JS function calls
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you maybe give me a full example?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(f) => f()
is an example.
Or a more realistic example using that pattern.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I should have clarified I meant for classes as records.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see anything more to add now. Great job @fhammerschmidt!
No description provided.