You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains hidden or 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
Rust developers will immediately recognize and appreciate it
JavaScript/TypeScript developers might find it unfamiliar but useful
Functional programming advocates may prefer more general monadic solutions
Overall Prediction
I think this will be well-received once people try it. The ReScript community generally values pragmatism alongside functional programming principles, and this strikes a good balance. The experimental flag is smart - it gives the team room to iterate based on real usage patterns.
The main debates will likely center around:
Whether to expand beyond built-ins to custom variants
Syntax bikeshedding (though let? is quite good)
Integration with future language features
This feels like a natural evolution for ReScript - maintaining its OCaml roots while improving developer experience for common patterns.
Areas for Improvement
Structure and flow: The post jumps between concepts without clear transitions. The section about "two observations" feels disconnected from what follows, and the explanation of how it works could be better integrated.
Terminology inconsistency: The post uses "let-unwrap," "let?," and "unwrap syntax" interchangeably without establishing clear naming conventions upfront.
Technical precision: Some statements could be clearer:
"matches the explicitness of ReScript we all like" - what does this mean exactly?
"plays nicely with async/await" - how specifically?
The distinction between block/local vs top-level usage needs clarification
"And it is for block or local bindings only; top-level usage is rejected" - why this restriction?
Suggested Improvements
Lead with a clear definition of what let? does before showing examples
Structure as problem → solution → implementation rather than jumping between topics
Standardize terminology early and stick with it
Add clearer section breaks to help readers follow the flow
Expand on the restrictions - explain why certain limitations exist
Include error cases in examples to show the full picture
Seems legit, except the last suggestion might be too much
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.
fhammerschmidt
force-pushed
the
roadmap-let-unwrap
branch
from
Closes #1086