Post

31 Oct 2024

Coming back to this. Took a look at what I was doing and found a way to make it the way I wanted it to work without relying on this pattern ✋🥸🤚, you taught me something sir

Why’s that? Don’t you struggle to identify which part of a with statement failed?

Hauleth

@hauleth.dev

If I need to know which statement failed then I find `with` to be trying to fit square peg into round hole. You either need to know (and then you probably should use `case` or separate function) or you do not care, and then you do not need hops like that.

Hmm idk about this one. I really feel that we should be able to do both: 1. focus on the success path 2. being able to handle the specifics error One would say that the saga pattern is here for that but feels like a bit much to implement for that (sending a follow up skeet)