Well the fact that it works with more than just `Result` is a pretty big win IMO
-
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Gankra_ @JakeGoulding
So why is the first better than the second? https://gist.github.com/sgrif/f967116241999765e3f46506215ad8ae …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
also objectively this is the best x.flatMap { (y) in do_stuff(y) .flatMap { do_more_stuff(y, $0) }}
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_ @JakeGoulding
Also that should probably be `flattenIntoSingleLevelAfterMappingWith: (y) in ...`
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @JakeGoulding
You're right, &x.ft_mp(&mut || {;};);; is much more information-dense
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Needs at least 5 more semicolons for maximum information density
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.