You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Conceptionally false is a valid value that can be checked for. Converting this implicitly to a failed Fox makes some expressions to magical (e.g. resolving assertions via the Fox ?~> statement here.
Let's have a look how often this is used and if it makes sense to remove it / convert it to explicit conversions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
That also leads to that x ?~> … behaves differently on Boolean and Fox[Boolean], where Fox[Boolean] seems to be a legit construct.
(Which is similar to Fox[Option], but this does not seem legit to me, as Fox overrules Option and should therefore be converted instead of wrapped. Wrapping a boolean in a Fox is fine.)
Could & should we actually just forbid Fox[Option] and Fox[Future] by having type bounds on Fox itself? /cc @fm3
Conceptionally
false
is a valid value that can be checked for. Converting this implicitly to a failed Fox makes some expressions to magical (e.g. resolving assertions via the Fox?~>
statement here.Let's have a look how often this is used and if it makes sense to remove it / convert it to explicit conversions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: