Why a compiler extension?
I'm not sure to fully understand the implications, but I think a key selling point of effect-ts is "it's just valid TypeScript" (using the same non-surprising language semantics) and not "it's actually another language" (for ex. PureScript).
I think
Would it make sense to distinguish this behavior in the method name with some kind of documented convention (maybe a suffix/prefix/or something, so you know you're in a not-so-standard territory)?
If compiler tweaks are useful, there could be however an optional, power-user mode for people who truly feel comfortable using tweaked version of the compiler. CC @Unknown user
I think
T.succeed(console.log(x)) as a shorthand for T.succeed(() => console.log(x)), if this is what it could be doing, is confusing (at least, to me) - with my TypeScript-accustomed brain. I'd expect the two to behave very differently.Would it make sense to distinguish this behavior in the method name with some kind of documented convention (maybe a suffix/prefix/or something, so you know you're in a not-so-standard territory)?
If compiler tweaks are useful, there could be however an optional, power-user mode for people who truly feel comfortable using tweaked version of the compiler. CC @Unknown user
