Ah, but here's something about the functors too: http://existentialtype.net/2008/05/26/functors-in-scala/
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 14:58, Anthony Di Franco <[email protected]> wrote: > We do have monads for scala, in the for construct, and via the > Functional Java library, see here: > http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2008/03/monads-another-way-to-abstract.html > > It's idiomatic in that the for construct is a central part of the > language routinely used, but whether that helps for Ur-learning > purposes is a separate question I won't address. > > Knowing what a functor is, I don't know what makes them or their use > "ML-style" but I would like to so as to be able to comment. > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 14:48, Adam Chlipala <[email protected]> wrote: >> Anthony Di Franco wrote: >>> >>> How about Scala (/Lift) as a kind of bridge between these worlds? Lots of >>> the same ideas come to the forefront and it's more approachable for a >>> certain sizeable chunk of the mainstream. >>> >> >> Does idiomatic Scala code use monadic IO or ML-style functors? If not, then >> Scala wouldn't quite get the job done. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ur mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur >> > _______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
