@eed3si9n @d6 @huitseeker @travisbrown avoid for-comprehensions almost always. Another thing #scala continues to get wrong.
-
-
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@d6@huitseeker@travisbrown because the semantics is not clear? didn't know `for` was so controversial2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eed3si9n
@eed3si9n@d6@huitseeker@travisbrown The final call to map, no type-safety, the filter nonsense...2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@eed3si9n@d6@huitseeker@travisbrown I wasn't aware they were not type safe. Can you provide an example?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @coltfred
@coltfred@eed3si9n@d6@huitseeker@travisbrown Yeah but won't fit in a twittle.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@eed3si9n@d6@huitseeker@travisbrown Mind constructing a gist when you have some time? I'm very interested.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @travisbrown
@travisbrown@coltfred@eed3si9n@d6@huitseeker@dibblego whats the problem here, that scala allows that?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @channingwalton
@channingwalton@travisbrown@coltfred@eed3si9n@d6@huitseeker#Scala allowing List ((1, 2), 3) past type checking is ludicrous.2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.