On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 16:50:15 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 14:26:20 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Why? Because I could, I don't plan on using this for anything
serious. I think "with" is my favourite D feature right now. I
also wrote the Writer and State monads (not that D needs them):
I also tried this. Instead of Write and State, I tried to model
the Functor > Applicative > Monad > MonadFail type hierarchy. I
found no way for a good "template inheritance" construct.
Overall, I quickly forgot about it, because it looks ugly and
seems to have no advantage.
I was thinking of doing that as well and was going to model the
hierarchy like so:
alias isFunctor = isInputRange;
enum isApplicative(alias T, U...) = isFunctor!T && is(typeof() {
... }));
enum isMonad(alias T, U...) = isApplicative!(T, U) &&
is(typeof(() { ... }));
Thinking more conceptually, Monads should be somewhat related
to input ranges, as both model a linear sequence.
Monads are related to input ranges because every monad is a
functor, and input ranges are functors.
Atila
