Borrows more Cvdm code to enhance computation expressions

[TheAngryByrd]

More work as part of #3.

This enhances the computation expressions to be on par with Cvdm

[cmeeren]

🙌

[demystifyfp]

Thanks, @TheAngryByrd for the contribution.
It'd be also helpful if you can add the associated tests as well. Thanks in advance :)

@cmeeren does it cover all the CE from Cvdm?

[cmeeren]

The best way to know is to also include all the tests and see if they pass. :)

That said, ResultBuilder.Combine is missing (so some of the tests probably wouldn't even compile). And some methods delegate to relevant module functions already existing in this library, which they should, but I can't immediately say whether it's exactly the same.

Type annotations should probably be explicitly specified, because some places they do impact the behaviour. I vaguely remember something about AsyncResult.Combine allowing stuff that didn't make sense for that CE until I locked it down with annotations that prevented such stuff from compiling (though I might misremember whether it was Combine or another method). Also, I am generally in favour of explicitly specifying type annotations in published libraries to ensure generic type params have descriptive/idiomatic names and are easier to read. But most important is the first point - missing type annotations in CEs can cause unexpected behaviour at runtime (unless you're a CE expert and know exactly what you're getting; I'm not, and the tests are the only way I am sure it works).

In summary, my recommendation is:

• Import all CE members as-is from Cvdm.ErrorHandling, including type annotations
• Import all CE tests
• Optionally rewrite some members using functions already existing in FsToolkit.ErrorHandling, making sure tests still pass

[TheAngryByrd]

Sounds like a plan. I'll get to it this week.

[demystifyfp]

Thanks, @cmeeren for the detailed writeup and @TheAngryByrd for taking this up.

[demystifyfp]

Thanks, @TheAngryByrd for the changes. Is anything else pending? Can I release a beta version to test things out?

@cmeeren Are you available test this new one after I release the new version?

[cmeeren]

Sure, but if you want I can check out the PR branch and test before you merge/release. (With "test", I mean run the suite of unit tests in Cvdm.ErrorHandling.)

I'll try to do it today.

[cmeeren]

Good to go; all existing Cvdm.ErrorHandling tests pass using TheAngryByrd:more-CE-binds.

(Except the requireEqual and requireEqualTo tests, because these haven't been merged yet, see #3 (comment))

[demystifyfp]

Thanks, @cmeeren for testing these changes. @TheAngryByrd Can I merge it?

[TheAngryByrd]

Merge it! 👍

[cmeeren]

[demystifyfp]

@TheAngryByrd @cmeeren I am facing some weird issues with the FSharp 4.6 update on my machine, and I am unable to publish the package because of this. I will release the new version as soon as I resolved this.