Skip to content
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

Add return type in Traverse example #1185

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 11, 2016

Conversation

richardmiller-zz
Copy link
Contributor

The following line says note the return type but it is not in the definition.

The following line says note the return type but it is not in the definition.
@codecov-io
Copy link

Current coverage is 88.79%

Merging #1185 into master will not change coverage

@@             master      #1185   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           233        233          
  Lines          3079       3079          
  Methods        3025       3025          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches         51         51          
==========================================
  Hits           2734       2734          
  Misses          345        345          
  Partials          0          0          

Sunburst

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by eb95684...6dc6644

@johnynek
Copy link
Contributor

👍

1 similar comment
@peterneyens
Copy link
Collaborator

👍

@peterneyens peterneyens merged commit 3538140 into typelevel:master Jul 11, 2016
@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor

ceedubs commented Jul 11, 2016

Thanks @richardmiller! I would also be inclined to mark this as tut:silent, because the output in the current form is a little wonky:

scala> def profilesFor(users: List[User]) = users.map(userInfo)
profilesFor: (users: List[User])List[scala.concurrent.Future[Profile]]

Now that the return type is specified explicitly the output line can probably just be omitted. What do you think?

richardmiller-zz pushed a commit to richardmiller-zz/cats that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
@richardmiller-zz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ceedubs makes sense to me to omit the output, I've opened #1186 with the change.

richardmiller-zz pushed a commit to richardmiller-zz/cats that referenced this pull request Jul 13, 2016
As with typelevel#1185 the return type is referred to in following line but not in the code example
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants