Unlike the best Y-combinator attempt in Scala 2, you don't need to write a lambda that looks like { f => x => ... }. The result is that you can actually basically the syntax you would want to write point-free recursive methods.
Show this thread
Here's how you can write a simpler (one-parameter) Y-combinator in Scala 3. The methods `y` and `recurse` would be defined in a library, then you would just call `recurse` when you want to recurse.pic.twitter.com/DLqYoO6QmU
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My scala 2 brain make an implicit Rec[Int] not found. How it’s works?
-
Except if this ?=> provide implicit in the scope of fun
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What is the ?=> syntax?
-
It's like =>, except that the input parameter is implicit. So it's not necessary to write it explicitly when you write the lambda, but its value is also available in that lambda through implicit scope.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hi, Jon, here is some "category theory level" code that does recursion (folding (e.g. parsing), unfolding (e.g. interpreting) and combining them). The benefit: "effect-aware implementations", e.g. interacting with Unix file system (in its most general sense, e.g. sockets).pic.twitter.com/4ldm6VH6TP
-
I thought it was the most complex Scala code I'd ever seen until I realised that most of the "complexity" is just identifier names. And it's now a distant second. ;) The higher-kinded doubly-covariant type lambda is interesting... is everything working as it should in Scala 3?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
FYI: I used "Classification" as a more programmer friendly word of "Category" so as not to scare programmers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.