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.
-
-
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
And that's the part that makes it more generic and useful
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
or it points to merging Future with Option/Result being completely muddied and problematic!
6 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
…so an 'await' poses similar hazards as a 'throw' for dangling invariant violations.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jckarter @JakeGoulding
And having it look the same regardless of if it's async or can fail or whatever else is also a win imo
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
yeah I probably need to concede the point on this one... but I still think heaping in lists is too far.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I guess my rough point is that it's possible to think that Monad is a good (but poorly named) abstraction 1/
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.