Inflexible | Inflexible aims to gather a collection

To do a series of asynchronous things in order, you start the next operation in the fulfillment handler of the previous operation.

An async function is the easiest way:

Just noticed the same problem in Jinja2. To change this you have to add a new key to the Environment:

Idiomatic or scala way to do this by using scala's Option.

Fortunately, upickle Values offers them. Refer strOpt method in this source code.

Your problem in code is str methods in m("always").str and m("sometimes").str With this code, you are prematurely assuming that all the values are strings. That's where the strOpt method comes. It either outputs a string if its value is a string or a None type if it not. And we can use getOrElse method coupled with it to decide what to throw if the value is None.

Following would be the optimum way to handle this.

Colab is quite similar to jupyter notebook and is free to use. Just send the link to other once you add your code. https://colab.research.google.com/ is the link. A quick guide is: https://colab.research.google.com/github/jckantor/CBE30338/blob/master/docs/01.01-Getting-Started-with-Python-and-Jupyter-Notebooks.ipynb

How about this?

I'm also a little confused about the nuance in those excerpts from that particular paper. I think it's more useful to take a few steps back and to explain the motivations behind the enterprise of algebraic effects, to which that paper belongs.

The MTL approach is in some sense the most obvious and general: you have an interface (or "effect"), put it in a type class and call it a day. The cost of that generality is that it is unprincipled: you don't know what happens when you combine interfaces together. This issue appears most concretely when you implement an interface: you must implement all of them simultaneously. We like to think that each interface can be implemented in isolation in a dedicated transformer, but if you have two interfaces, say MonadPlus and MonadError, implemented by transformers ListT and ExceptT, in order to compose them, you will also have to either implement MonadError for ListT or MonadPlus for ExceptT. This O(n^2) instance problem is popularly understood as "just boilerplate", but the deeper issue is that if we allow interfaces to be of any shape, there is no telling what danger could hide in that "boilerplate", if it can even be implemented at all.

We must put more structure on those interfaces. For some definition of "lift" (lift from MonadTrans), the effects we can lift uniformly through transformers are exactly the algebraic effects. (See also, Monad Transformers and Modular Algebraic Effects, What Binds Them Together.)

This is not truly a restriction. While some interfaces are not algebraic in a technical sense, such as MonadError (because of catch), they can usually still be expressed within the framework of algebraic effects, just less literally. While restricting the definition of an "interface", we also gain richer ways of using them.

So I think algebraic effects are a different, more precise way of thinking about interfaces before all. As a way of thinking, it can thus be adopted without changing anything about your code, which is why comparisons tend to look at the same code twice and it is difficult to see the point without having a grasp on the surrounding context and motivations. If you think the O(n^2) instances problem is a trivial "boilerplate" problem, you already believe in the principle that interfaces ought to be composable; algebraic effects are one way of explicitly designing libraries and languages around that principle.

"Algebraic effects" are a fuzzy notion without a fixed definition. Nowadays they are most recognizable by syntax featuring a call and a handle construct (or op/perform/throw/raise and catch/match). call is the one construct to use interfaces and handle is how we implement them. The idea common to such languages is that there are equations (hence "algebraic") that provide a basic intuition of how call and handle behave in a way that's independent of the interface, notably via the interaction of handle with sequential composition (>>=).

Semantically, the meaning of a program can be denoted by a tree of calls, and a handle is a transformation of such trees. That's why many incarnations of "algebraic effects" in Haskell start with free monads, types of trees parameterized by the type of nodes f:

I ultimately did it with a MultiBinding and an IMultiValueConverter:

The answer to your question is provided directly on the documentation page (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/ssm/send-command.html)

To target a larger number of instances, or if you prefer not to list individual instance IDs, we recommend using the Targets option instead. Using Targets , which accepts tag key-value pairs to identify the instances to send commands to, you can a send command to tens, hundreds, or thousands of instances at once.

You can use --targets option instead of --instance-ids:

As it seams that you are using VBA you can you RegEx to compare the strings OR to remove the delimiters OR replace them by any default delimiter for the comparison.