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