... things?
It took me giving my own talk today to realise it (!) but I can abstract over the runtime impl' (currently using only Future.sequence, http://future.map & future.get.get) with just a couple of standard typeclasses. It could then represent general typelevel DAGs of things...
-
-
-
I mean, if the goal is to eventually “apply”/”run”, things has some connotation it would miss if just interested in the related DAG
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is this a very complicated way to say "Monad+Traverse", Jon?
-
It is, but with and additional "conditionally-safe" `get`.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.