Conversation
This reverts commit 2cbe1d2.
chrisdenman
requested review from
konsumlamm,
memowe,
pierluc-codes,
smith558,
ulysses4ever and
xogcox
as code owners
|
hey @chrisdenman! no worries. There's a catch though: all PRs you were submitting this week have conflicts with our main branch (GH PR page says "This branch has conflicts that must be resolved"). This means that you probably didn't update the main branch of your clone and that same branch of your local checkout before branching out with your feature branch. I encourage you to look into it: we really don't want to review once and then wait until you update the feature branch one way or another and then re-review the result (the result may become ill-formed if the update goes awry, which happens sometimes). |
|
@chrisdenman I'd be happy to give you a crash course on Git if you'd like. The distributed model can be counterintuitive for those starting out :). |
|
Hey @chrisdenman ! Do you need any help with rebasing or anything else? Let us know! No rush of course |
|
@ulysses4ever i merged origin/main. Let me know if you are happy with those changes. |
|
Good! I'll take a look by the end of the week. |
ulysses4ever
left a comment
ulysses4ever
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pierluc-codes thanks a lot! See if you have energy to fix one comment below (remove a newline). If not, it's okay as is as well!
| Throwing exceptions from pure code and dealing with them hasn't been covered here, mainly because, like we said, Haskell offers much better ways to indicate errors than reverting to I/O to catch them. | ||
| Even when gluing together I/O actions that might fail, I prefer to have their type be something like `IO (Either a b)`, meaning that they're normal I/O actions but the result that they yield when performed is of type `Either a b`, meaning it's either `Left a` or `Right b`. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This newline isn't needed perhaps.
|
And feel free to merge whenever ready |
|
hey @chrisdenman! do you intend to rebase and see if any of it is still relevant? |
3 participants
My apologies, I had to recreate this PR as I killed my fork's branch (see closed PR).
This branch contains the same work, with a revert commit for the offending 'lets' change and a commit that fixes it.
Again, sorry for the wasted efforts.