Proposal: Chainable do sugar
isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 21:34:08 UTC 2019
I feel JS should first have a concept of what a monad (or functor) is
before it adds sugar for it. This just feels too early.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:48 Paul Gray <pfbgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss