It was exactly one comment from evancz, which says: "I don't want to readd this feature...I think it makes sense to continue discussion in this issue if you thi

It was exactly one comment from evancz, which says: "I don't want to readd this feature...I think it makes sense to continue discussion in this issue if you think there are valid use cases". Here [1] is the actual feature request. The existence of a BDFL is irrelevant. This rejection is frustrating whether it comes from one person, or a committee, a peer, whatever, because it is arbitrary and unjustified. The feature wouldn't compromise the design philosophy nor its consistency. "I don't want this" is not a design philosophy, and neither is "your use case is invalid". The use case is actually solid. Writing readable, maintainable code which is conceptually easy to understand in the span of a few paragraphs, like in the blog post. [1] https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/1283 https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/1283 PS. I'm certain evancz has a reasoning behind his wish to keep the feature out of Elm. He just doesn't communicate it, which makes the decision seem arbitrary.