Everything Is A Signal™
Conversation
I… I don't think that's helpful in this discussion. ;)
1
I think it’s relevant, because it parallels some other conversations that we’ve had. We use signals to encapsulate effects.
1
It bucks the conventional understanding of how signals might be used, but it means that we don’t need this distinction.
1
Our view models are a collection of inputs and outputs. Some of which are effectful. All of which are signals.
1
What does it mean for an output to be effectful?
1
e.g., resulting in the presentation of a new view controller, or the view model beginning a network request.
1
OK. How do you express those effects as outputs in the interface?
1
My point is exactly that _you don’t need to_. Why is it important? The effects are an implementation detail.
2
Trying to figure out how this is different from any object which performs effects when it e.g. receives a message.
2
Replying to
My remaining concern is: most of most view models are totally pure. Why not isolate the impurities?
Replying to
That isolation is an implementation detail (but maybe could still be valuable), because the signal interface isolates it.
1
Consumers of the signal interface don’t know or care whether it’s impure, because the effects have been isolated already.
2
Show replies