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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
