The function from that thread exists as
> Am 15.10.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Austin Bingham <austin.bing...@gmail.com>:
> I've got a situation where I've got task that will always succeed, and I want
> to know the best practice for using it with Task.perform.
> The task itself is a Task.sequence of tasks that may individually fail, and I
> want to report the result - success or failure - for each of them. So there's
> no meaningful failure mode that I can find for the final Task.perform.
> I've seen a suggestion in this group for defining a performSucceed function
> (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/5Q9ktTuavgY/mGk3PVn7CgAJ), and
> this seems perfectly reasonable to me. But I'm also trying to write elm as
> idiomatically as I can, so I wanted to know if this is generally considered
> Similarly, if my approach (i.e. aggregating a bunch of results into a
> sequence of success-failure Results) is wrong-headed, I'm happy to entertain
> alternative implementations.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Elm Discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.