Closed Eknir closed 5 years ago
This is definitely a good idea. What do you think about the paradigm of passing in two channels like
new return, error in {
abs!(5, *return, *error)
}
Then you get something back on exactly one of the error and return channels. Kind of like javascript promises.
What about this @JoshOrndorff ?
Looking pretty good. I'm just not seeing why inputChecker
was necessary. What if we
contarct abs(@input, return error) = {
match input {
inp /\ Int => whatever
_ => whatever
}
}
btw, I'm having fun exploring this and learning with you. If revising becomes a pain I'll happily merge.
I like it too. If you are patient, I'll definitely propose a revision.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 19:52 Joshy Orndorff, notifications@github.com wrote:
btw, I'm having fun exploring this and learning with you. If revising becomes a pain I'll happily merge.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JoshOrndorff/librho/pull/3#issuecomment-427111102, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfeL-elXkrt3SMk6RF3tqH0BXT_pDMMdks5uhkrUgaJpZM4XH6ey .