-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
What's the right way to have a signal take no input #13
Comments
Yes, that's intended behaviour so far. You're creating a new Signal of type Void that uses the convenience init. This init now stores the last result (a successful result of void) and every subscriber get's the last result on subscription. Then on update you run the whole chain again - resulting in the second next fired. Currently I'm using a workaround of using a Maybe you have an idea for better semantics of void signals? |
No I agree with you. I was just surprised at the behavior. I wonder if an alternate form of init() might be possible. I'll play around and see what i can come up with. |
Why does |
Yep, it is. If you think about a I have two ideas how to deal with this:
What do you think? |
V2 now allows for |
This is my first approach:
Unfortunately next() gets fired twice.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: