On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Mike Stay wrote:
>>
>> Is the ES6 spec too far along to introduce
>> some other construct that would desugar to the above, or is there
>> still time to create a proposal?
>
>
> Way late.

Oh, well.

> What's wrong with the iteration protocol?

Nothing at all for arrays.  For every other monad, there's no sugar:
the only monad multiplication that's supported is list concatenation.

> Again, we're not doing control effects the way you might want given a clean
> slate.

Sure, but array.map has never been pure.  Anyone who wants purity
won't be using JavaScript.  I was just hoping that since we have
special syntax for one monad, we could use it for all of them.

-- 
Mike Stay - metaweta at gmail.com
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike
http://reperiendi.wordpress.com

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Mike Stay wrote:
>
>> Is the ES6 spec too far along to introduce
>> some other construct that would desugar to the above, or is there
>> still time to create a proposal?
>
>
> Way late.

Oh, well.

> What's wrong with the iteration protocol?

Nothing at all for arrays.  For every other monad, there's no sugar:
the only monad multiplication that's supported is list concatenation.

> Again, we're not doing control effects the way you might want given a clean
> slate.

Sure, but array.map has never been pure.  Anyone who wants purity
won't be using JavaScript.  I was just hoping that since we have
special syntax for one monad, we could use it for all of them.