Don Syme
Don Syme
Perhaps putting a warning CompilerMessage attribute on groupBy makes sense. It's too subtle.
Yes, these are both sensible design additions
It's true, though I certainly remember using these when playing around with AsyncSeq, testing and so on. Perhaps renaming to `toListSynchronously` and and `toArraySynchronously` may be right for now?
I haven't followed the repo in a few weeks, so am answering at a high level 1. If a TaskSeq is eliminated to a primitive value (e.g. `int) an optional...
> In AsyncSeq and Async this was resolved by adding overloads that take an optional cancellation token. Not ideal either. In short, I believe this is the only correct/viable solution....
> The only thing left out here is how to pass or get a token to a for loop in the Async or Task CE. But I’ve some idea how...
How about AsyncSeq.mergeAll?
I spent a while talking with @memura to prototype what the programming model supported by the type provider might look like by jotting out what would be allowed. It's a...
Yes for the project and nuget something like FSharp.Control.TaskExtras may make sense We can think it over a bit more but I guess it's OK to go for task/cancellableTask/taskSeq for...
Yes, this should be rewritten with a loop