Proposal: Chainable do sugar

Paul Gray pfbgray at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 12:48:00 UTC 2019


I believe generators only work for certain monads, as explained here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/32192145

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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  David
>>
>> 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
>> BRIGADE.
>>
>> 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
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190118/58f32c5e/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list