Right. So why is being able to abstract over "thing that can be flat_mapped" bad?
-
-
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
It's too big. There's too many weird things. You end up start trying to explain that things are really burritos.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_ @JakeGoulding
On the other hand you get nice things like do notation instead of special cased syntax and "Carrier"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
I haven't really dug into that stuff to know why it's better/worse than do, but do hardly seems like a big win.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_ @JakeGoulding
Well the fact that it works with more than just `Result` is a pretty big win IMO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Gankra_ @JakeGoulding
Not really at the same level, no. And it won't work with anything like `Future`
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
I mean that kinda makes sense... I dunno what on earth `try`ing a Future means!
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Gankra_ @JakeGoulding
Fair -- I wish they hadn't reserved `?` for `try!` though. Do notation is more about unwrapping
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
Yeah it's a huge waste of `?` -- would have preferred making it into `map` like C#/Swift.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I kinda liked how Scala approached `for` notation where `=` is `map` and `<-` is `flatMap`
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.