Update “Never” article reference to Result type#699
Open
Ashton-W wants to merge 1 commit intoNSHipster:masterfrom
Open
Update “Never” article reference to Result type#699Ashton-W wants to merge 1 commit intoNSHipster:masterfrom
Ashton-W wants to merge 1 commit intoNSHipster:masterfrom
Conversation
At the time of the article Swift didn’t have a standard Result type, I changed the wording to reflect that it now does but didn’t at the time of the evolution proposal the paragraph is talking about. Done on mobile so might have missed something or this could be worded better? Use another PR or suggest changes for me to make - no problem either way.
mattt
force-pushed
the
master
branch
4 times, most recently
from
1fc06e7 to
95d3aa4
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
At the time of the article Swift didn’t have a standard Result type, I changed the wording to reflect that it now does but didn’t at the time of the evolution proposal the paragraph is talking about.
Done on mobile so might have missed something or this could be worded better? Use another PR or suggest changes for me to make - no problem either way.