Switch to visible type applications

[sigma-andex]

Switch to visible type applications to make it easier to work with Variants

[jmatsushita]

Hey thanks, I was looking for this. However, since this approach breaks backward compatibility, how about instead introducing inj' prj' on' variants () that take VTAs?

If purescript-variant was ok with making a breaking release, then here's two libraries that would need to be fixed upstream (that I can identify in my codebase) are:

• purescript-codec-argonaut that would also require a breaking change to allow variantCase to take a VTA as well.

EDIT: turns out it didn't garyb/purescript-codec-argonaut@master...jmatsushita:purescript-codec-argonaut:master

• purescript-simple-json would also require a couple of patches here and here.

EDIT here's a patch for this too justinwoo/purescript-simple-json@master...jmatsushita:purescript-simple-json:master

[i-am-the-slime]

Not my library, but I hate function names with 's on them. For my own projects I have a VTA version of inj called as which I find much more beginner-friendly: as @"xyzException" 123
Or 123 # as @"xyzException".

[YourFin]

I am interested in getting this merged; anything I can do to help?

[natefaubion]

I'm not really interested in making a major breaking change right now without a larger ecosystem migration to VTAs. Aside from the fact that package sets are effectively "nightly", and a breaking change will boot every dependency out of the set, Variant is used in several large codebases that aren't on pursuit. My personal opinion is that if this is imperative, one could publish a purescript-variant-vta package that exports VTA variations.

[sigma-andex]

Personally I don’t have the time to work on this anymore, so if anyone is interested in this feel free to take over this PR and either make it non-breaking or as @natefaubion suggested release a separate package.