On 15/09/2011 14:09, Jérémie Dimino wrote:
> Le jeudi 15 septembre 2011 à 12:04 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :
>> I guess, not (and it has been answered already). In fact, I was wondering
>> if Lwt's authors would be against adding a function like:
>>
>> let wrap f x = try Lwt.return (f x) with e -> Lwt.fail e
>>
>> It is stupid, trivial, etc… but looks what we need most of the time, no?
>
> Yes, it seems useful. But should it be:
>
> val wrap : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'b t
>
> or:
>
> val wrap : (unit -> 'a) -> 'a t
>
> ?
>
> I would tend for the second solution because if you are wrapping a
> function that takes multiple arguments you are going to write:
>
> wrap (fun () -> f x y z) ()
>
> anyway. Plus maybe wrap1, wrap2, ..., wrapn for a reasonable value of n.
>
Sure. Thanks for considering. Any of the above proposals would be fine for
me :)
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
