Replies: 1 comment
-
Yeah, not sure what route we should take here. I'll need to play around with the built-in Option and Result to understand this better. The second approach (adding an implicit conversion b/w them) sounds better to me thus far because union types don't behave exactly the same as the current implementations of Result and Maybe. E.g I don't think there will be a check like this https://github.com/vkhorikov/CSharpFunctionalExtensions/blob/master/CSharpFunctionalExtensions/Result/ResultTE.cs#L17 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
With the TypeUnions proposals Option type and Result type will be built-in
see a quick demo
@vkhorikov have you already think about how you wish to see the lib go?
we could add support for all the existing extensions methods to support that built-in type?
like making all Maybe extensions available for Option (.NET type)
and make all Result extensions available for Result (.NET type)
or we could simply translate an option to a maybe, and a result(.NET) to a result here
anyway it's just food for thoughts
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions