Removed references to deprecated onSuccess and onFailure methods.

[iwalt]

I've tried to provide the equivalent examples and discussion; removed a couple of paragraphs that no longer seemed quite relevant (notably the little explanation of partial functions).

Hope this is okay.

[giftig]

That's technically true, but doesn't really explain what's going on. It'd be more accurate to say that future.failed converts the Future[Failed[Throwable]] to a Future[Success[Throwable]] to allow foreach to operate on the Throwable, and will produce a Future[Failure[NoSuchElementException]] if the original future succeeded, essentially swapping the position of the throwable.

I think probably the wording can just be a little simpler though, especially as there's a link to a projections anchor further down the page.

"To handle failed results, you can first use the failed projection to convert the Failure[Throwable] to a Success[Throwable] and then use foreach on the newly-successful Future instead."

I do note that the projections section clarifies that the failed projection is to enable handling exceptions with for comprehensions, though, so I wonder if there's actually an advantage to future.failed.foreach over simply

future onComplete {
  case Success(_) =>
  case Failure(t) => println("Uh oh") 
}

given that the former requires creating a new Future. Maybe it's not worth mentioning the side-effect-on-failure-only scenario at all until the projections section?

[iwalt]

I agree that failed.foreach doesn't really add very much (indeed if this was particularly useful then I expect onFailure wouldn't be deprecated).

So how about we just remove this failure-scenario discussion/example, replace it with your "to handle failed results" paragraph and a link to the 'Projections' section where it can be properly explained?

[giftig]

That makes sense to me.

[iwalt]

Okay so I've went a bit further to try and make things immediately obvious if the link is followed. See what you think..

[giftig]

I guess you were trying to avoid touching the next line unnecessarily but it's made the hard-wrapping a little untidy.

[SethTisue]

LGTM, perhaps @viktorklang would like to take a quick look

[SethTisue]

thank you, Ian!