-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Have @composed
assign its Possibility
to the function name
#13
Comments
gen_f = @composed function f(...)
really necessary?@composed
assign its Possibility
to the function name
Please formulate feature requests with some actionable description instead of as a question - I'm going to look into Github Discussions and/or a zulip channel for general discussion around design decisions. There isn't too big of a reason, other than |
Maybe it's better to keep them separate, so I can still call |
That doesn't currently work, but could be made to work 🤔 This definitely requires having the function name be distinct from the generator. |
This reworks `@composed`, allowing the function to be called like any other function, similar to how `@check` allows it. In addition, this fixes the `Data.postype` bug of `@composed` when used in a local scope. Fixes #13
This reworks `@composed`, allowing the function to be called like any other function, similar to how `@check` allows it. In addition, this fixes the `Data.postype` bug of `@composed` when used in a local scope. Fixes #13
Here we give two different names
f
andgen_f
. What is the benefit of separating them out like this? Why not just usef
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: