Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

improve EitherT inference for use in for-comprehension #1627

Closed

Conversation

jtjeferreira
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Apr 24, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #1627 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1627   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.35%   93.35%           
=======================================
  Files         240      240           
  Lines        3930     3930           
  Branches      136      136           
=======================================
  Hits         3669     3669           
  Misses        261      261
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
core/src/main/scala/cats/data/EitherT.scala 96.19% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c1dcd40...70d2c44. Read the comment docs.

@kailuowang
Copy link
Contributor

The original signature is to enable for comprehension for EitherT with different left type, see #1506. We've been back and forth on this one. Should probably add a FAQ entry.

@jtjeferreira
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kailuowang I asked first in https://gitter.im/typelevel/cats?at=58f8c38708c00c092a9bdb7c. Maybe a unit test would be enough...

@kailuowang
Copy link
Contributor

@jtjeferreira to be clear I am 👎 on dropping support for for-comprehension with EitherT with different Left types. I think its benefit justifies the inconvenience of the imperfect type inference.

@jtjeferreira
Copy link
Contributor Author

I understood. Was just suggesting that instead of adding something to the FAQ, just add that example from #1506 to a unit test. I can create a PR with that...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants