Repository navigation
Introduce **> syntax - #223
Closed
armanbilge wants to merge 3 commits into
Closed
armanbilge wants to merge 3 commits into
armanbilge wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Owner
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #202.
Now you can write
onFoo **> effectto evaluate an effect every time an event is emitted. The syntax is inspired by Cats*>akaproductRi.e. aflatMapthat ignores the result of the left-side.I worry that this syntax obfuscates an important detail, that is clearer when working with a stream with the
-->syntax. Specifically, that untileffectcompletes, handling of additional events will be blocked. Soeffectshould not be a long-running task; instead, long-running tasks should be scheduled on someSupervisor.Of course, to avoid this surprise, we could have
**>always runeffecton its own fiber to avoid blocking handling of additional events. I'd prefer not to do this by default, because:effectSupervisorfor each**>Supervisoror similar makes that management explicit.Thoughts? :)