@alvinalexander @SethTisue @propensive hello 
- I came across code like that in lines 7-8 of contrived example https://scastie.scala-lang.org/philipschwarz/OcLua2VcQDmqSN2XVpCqsA/1 …
_ = if <condition> throw <exception>
it seems to me they can be rewritten as in lines 14-15
if <condition> || (throw <exception>)
Agree?
-
thank you - rather than on Lists, the for comprehension operated on Futures, but yes, absolutely, it looks unconventional to me and suspect/suboptimal - but I couldn't help noticing that the _ = is unnecessary in any case
Different monad-like types might implement `map` and `withFilter` in ways which cause unexpected behaviour, so in the general case, there's no equivalence guaranteed.
-
-
yes, good point, thanks - in the case of List and Future the equivalence seems to hold - here is the same example but with Future https://scastie.scala-lang.org/philipschwarz/IdXOsIR0RkOpiD7ZwPm69A/27 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.