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

Create an array versions of zip and combineLatest operator for rxswift 2.0 #102

Closed
kzaher opened this issue Aug 19, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Comments

@kzaher
Copy link
Member

kzaher commented Aug 19, 2015

No description provided.

@kzaher kzaher changed the title Create an array versions of zip and combineLates operator for rxswift 2.0 Create an array versions of zip and combineLatest operator for rxswift 2.0 Aug 19, 2015
@kzaher
Copy link
Member Author

kzaher commented Sep 1, 2015

This is done.

@kzaher kzaher closed this as completed Sep 1, 2015
@orkenstein
Copy link

@kzaher
Why does it takes resultSelector: Function to invoke whenever any of the sources produces an element.?
I think it must be nillable.

@kzaher
Copy link
Member Author

kzaher commented Feb 22, 2016

Hi @orkenstein ,

why?

@orkenstein
Copy link

@kzaher
What is the purpose of this function? What if I just want to call combineLatest on array?
Am I missing something?

@kzaher
Copy link
Member Author

kzaher commented Feb 24, 2016

Usually when you combine something, you want to define how to combine multiple items.

I think that we could potentially make resultSelector = { $0 } by default.

combineLatest is usually followed by a map IMHO, but I guess I don't see any harm in adding a default value, and I don't think that's a breaking change.

@orkenstein
Copy link

Agree. I can publish a PR.

25 февр. 2016 г., в 2:30, Krunoslav Zaher notifications@github.com
написал(а):

Usually when you combine something, you want to define how to combine
multiple items.

I think that we could potentially make resultSelector = { $0 } by default.

combineLatest is usually followed by a map IMHO, but I guess I don't see
any harm in adding a default value, and I don't think that's a breaking
change.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#102 (comment).

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants