Same question about the function modifier keyword, but now using a `with`-based effect notation:
(Edit: see https://blog.yoshuawuyts.com/a-with-based-effect-notation for more details on this particular notation)
0 Boosts
0 Likes
@yosh All of your examples return the empty tuple - where the does -> T go in relation to the with, and where does the new keyword go in relation to train bounds?
@yosh All of your examples return the empty tuple - where the does -> T go in relation to the with, and where does the new keyword go in relation to train bounds?
@yosh All of your examples return the empty tuple - where the does -> T go in relation to the with, and where does the new keyword go in relation to train bounds?
@yosh All of your examples return the empty tuple - where the does -> T go in relation to the with, and where does the new keyword go in relation to train bounds?
@yosh I think it depends heavily on whatever naming convention is adopted for effects more generally. I'd expect all effects to have the same grammatical form, I guess?
@yosh I think it depends heavily on whatever naming convention is adopted for effects more generally. I'd expect all effects to have the same grammatical form, I guess?
@yosh I think it depends heavily on whatever naming convention is adopted for effects more generally. I'd expect all effects to have the same grammatical form, I guess?
@yosh I think it depends heavily on whatever naming convention is adopted for effects more generally. I'd expect all effects to have the same grammatical form, I guess?
@yosh I think it depends heavily on whatever naming convention is adopted for effects more generally. I'd expect all effects to have the same grammatical form, I guess?
@yosh All of your examples return the empty tuple - where the does -> T go in relation to the with, and where does the new keyword go in relation to train bounds?