MONADS AND RUST A THREAD - or - why async/await instead of do notation
-
-
That is, in order to reify the state machine of their control flow for optimization, both Future and Iterator return a new type from their >>= op, not "Self<U>"
Prikaži ovu nit -
Also, our functions are not a `->` type constructor; they come in 3 different flavors, and many of our monads use different ones (FnOnce vs FnMut vs Fn).
Prikaži ovu nit -
Okay, so Monad can't abstract over Future, but still let's have Monad. Problem: we don't have higher kinded polymorphism, and probably never will.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The problem is that without currying at the type level, higher kinded polymorphism makes type inference trivially undecidable. We have no currying.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In order to add higher kinded polymorphism, we'd have to restrict the sorts of types you could use in a way that would feel very arbitrary to users.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In contrast, generic associated types don't have this problem, and directly solve the expressiveness problems we do have, like Iterable (abstracting over everything with a `.iter(&self)` method)
Prikaži ovu nit -
(Don't get me wrong, you can write something to abstract over some monads like Option and Result using generic associated types. But its much less ergonomic than Monad in Haskell, even for those).
Prikaži ovu nit -
IN CONCLUSION: a design that works in a pure FP which lazily evaluates and boxes everything by default doesn't necessarily work in an eager imperative language with no runtime.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This comes up a lot, please link this thread liberally.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
Tweet je nedostupan.
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.