02:46 <discord3> <mars0i> Also Containers--another alternative to Batteries and Core.

02:54 <discord3> <mars0i> @grantrec, I learned from RWO but I already knew FP, and I felt as if there were some spots where it might have gone too quickly over the FP concepts and style (which can seem very different for some experienced programmers). However, I've never heard anyone else raise this as an issue for RWO, so maybe I'm worrying about nothing (or maybe the people who found RWO to be an inadequate intro to FP never learned

02:54 <discord3> OCaml and don't talk about it 😃 ). Anyway, that's why I mentioned OCaml from the Very Beginning. Why don't you try RWO and see what you think?

02:55 <discord3> <mars0i> It is a good book.

02:57 <discord3> <mars0i> (If it turns out you want more of a feel for FP, there are other good sources you could use to supplement RWO, though the ones I know well use other languages.)

09:32 <discord3> <mseri> There is also Base, I think used in the new RWO. Lighter than core

09:33 <discord3> <mseri> They all have their pros and cons, I think Containers is the lighter one, then Base and then Core and Batteries

23:38 <Fare> Hi. I have a function that seems to unify 'a and 'b, probably because I mixed up arguments somewhere. How do I debug what is causing the undesired type unification?

23:41 <companion_cube> you can try to fix the type explicityl and see where it fails

23:41 <companion_cube> let f : type a b. (a -> b) -> a list -> b list = fun f l -> …