Extensible FlattenStrategy. #459
Conversation
Sources/Flatten.swift
Outdated
| return true | ||
|
|
||
| default: | ||
| return false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not saying I agree with this change, but if we merge it, it doesn’t make sense to keep the Equatable conformance.
Sources/Flatten.swift
Outdated
| /// The resulting producer will complete only when all inputs have | ||
| /// completed. | ||
| public static let merge = FlattenStrategy.concurrent(limit: .max) | ||
| public static var merge: FlattenStrategy { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn’t need to be a derived property, why not keep a constant?
|
Can you elaborate on the “without a major version bump” thing? Is that in case users are |
|
Yes, that was the reason @mdiep blocked the race strategy (#233) from merging into 1.1.x to be semver compliant. Even if extensible versioned enum (note: library evolution) eventually lands in Swift, |
|
Cool then I’m on board after those 2 comments |
|
I'll review soon, but this is a great idea. 💯 |
andersio
force-pushed
the
flatten-strategy
branch
from
973ca53 to
183fd5a
Compare
In case we might want to add new flatten strategies in the future without a major version bump,
FlattenStrategynow hides its enum nature. This on paper breaks switches overFlattenStrategy, but I don't see any real use case that would be affected.Checklist
Updated CHANGELOG.md.