On Jan 4, 9:40 pm, Raoul Duke wrote:
> > It is interfaces that are more restrictive than protocols, and extend
> > can't fix that. This ability to extend an existing type to a protocol
> > is a main reason protocols exist.
>
> i guess i'm horribly confused about the right mental model for all of
>From the 1.1 release notes:
"Futures represent asynchronous computations. They are away to get
code to run in another thread, and obtain the result."
I know "away" is just a typo for "a way", but be damned if that isn't
the best pun I've seen in a while.
Apologies if this seems like noise, but
