do notation is a bit better behaved than scala's for notation (afaik) When HKT and the associated traits happen, some analogue of the Functor and Applicative abstractions in haskell would be great complements to monads. In fact, it can easily be argued that they're more important in many library APIs
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Ziad Hatahet <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Zack Corr <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the Monadic null operator (a.k.a. safe property access operator) >> would be pretty useful syntax sugar for mapping over option types, and >> certainly help with the whole "option vs fail" for error checking because >> it essentially allows monad-like functionality without actually having >> (first-class) monads. >> > > > I still think that having something like Haskell's `do`, or Scala's `for` > is a better way to go about this. Especially that it generalizes over more > than just `Option<T>`. > > -- > Ziad > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
