Proposal: Chainable do sugar
pfbgray at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 12:48:00 UTC 2019
I believe generators only work for certain monads, as explained here:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 7:42 AM Paul Gray <pfbgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say "Monad" is a very precise term with lawful implications.I left
> it out since there is no requirement for the value to actually be a monad
> (Only that it has a chain and map method, hence 'chainable').
> Not sure if it's worth being that precise, though.
> "flatMap" is also another option, instead of "chain" (especially since
> arrays now have flatMap)
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 5:52 AM David Teller <dteller at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Fwiw, generators can already be used as syntactic sugar for monads.
>> THIS MESSAGE AND ITS IP ADDRESS HAVE BEEN LOGGED. PLEASE DO NOT MOVE
>> FROM YOUR COMPUTER. YOU WILL SHORTLY RECEIVE A VISIT FROM THE IMPERATIVE
>> On 18/01/2019 06:32, Michael Luder-Rosefield wrote:
>> > It's OK, you can say the m-word here. Monad. See? Nothing bad wi--
>> > -TRANSMISSION LOST
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss