You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
By "deprecate" I mean "set to private[effect] and undo the currying". We need to maintain binary compatibility but we can break source compatibility with this change. The goal should be for IO.interruptible(...) to be equivalent to what IO.interruptible(false)(...) is today, while IO.interruptibleMany(...) should be equivalent to IO.interruptible(true)(...). This change should also be applied to Sync.
Originally posted by etspaceman August 19, 2021
I'm wondering if we should create an alias around this. For example, interruptible(false) reads like it isn't interruptible. Perhaps we should consider interruptibleOnce and interruptibleMany.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
By "deprecate" I mean "set to
private[effect]
and undo the currying". We need to maintain binary compatibility but we can break source compatibility with this change. The goal should be forIO.interruptible(...)
to be equivalent to whatIO.interruptible(false)(...)
is today, whileIO.interruptibleMany(...)
should be equivalent toIO.interruptible(true)(...)
. This change should also be applied toSync
.Discussed in #2248
Originally posted by etspaceman August 19, 2021
I'm wondering if we should create an alias around this. For example,
interruptible(false)
reads like it isn't interruptible. Perhaps we should considerinterruptibleOnce
andinterruptibleMany
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: