On March 22, 2018 1:56 AM, Jérémy Zurcher <jer...@asynk.ch> wrote:
> just trying to follow here and maybe clarify a bit.
>
> Of course everybody here knows about the conventions :
>
> - 0 is the success return code
> - anything else is an (hopefully documented) error
>
> we all know about logical shell chaining :
>
> cmd1 && cmd2 && cmd3 || cmd4
>
> but what I think I understood here is that promises chaining should be a
> different construction where the chaining is not dependent on the return
> code
> (success/failure) of any of the actions.
>
> { action 1 } then { action 2 } then { action 3 }
>
> it's a 'then' meaning 'after that', not an '&&' that means 'on action
> success'
> so with v beeing the value of the promise, you do
>
> { action 1 } then { if (v!=0) return action21 else return action22 } then
> { if (v==0) action 3 }
>
> and with handy helpers (operator logic) like
>
> bypassOnFailure(if (v!=0) return v)
> bypassOnSuccess(if (v==0) return v)
>
> you can do
>
> { action1 } then { bypassOnFailure(); action2 } then { bypassOnSuccess();
> action3 } then { byPassOnFailure; action4 }
>
> the chaining fails on "System errors" -> Exception on some languages
> the logic is implemented in the futur
>
> hope I'm not in outer space.
Exactly, you got it !
Thanks,
Cedric
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
