Proposal: Chainable do sugar

# Paul Gray (6 years ago)

Hello friends!

I’d love to discuss the potential for syntax sugar around a popular fp pattern, chainables!

I’ve written up a document here pfgray/ecma-proposal-chainable-do-syntax with the

details.

I’ve also written a small Babel plugin that implements this. Here’s a codesandbox codesandbox.io/s/4qkl21666w with it loaded up.

Thanks for your time!

Paul Gray

Hello friends!

I’d love to discuss the potential for syntax sugar around a popular fp
pattern, *chainables*!

I’ve written up a document here
<https://github.com/pfgray/ecma-proposal-chainable-do-syntax> with the
details.

I’ve also written a small Babel plugin that implements this. Here’s a
codesandbox <https://codesandbox.io/s/4qkl21666w> with it loaded up.

Thanks for your time!

- Paul Gray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190117/aa683e9a/attachment.html>

# Michael Luder-Rosefield (6 years ago)

It's OK, you can say the m-word here. Monad. See? Nothing bad wi--

-TRANSMISSION LOST

It's OK, you can say the m-word here. Monad. See? Nothing bad wi--

-TRANSMISSION LOST

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 11:03 Paul Gray <pfbgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello friends!
>
> I’d love to discuss the potential for syntax sugar around a popular fp
> pattern, *chainables*!
>
> I’ve written up a document here
> <https://github.com/pfgray/ecma-proposal-chainable-do-syntax> with the
> details.
>
> I’ve also written a small Babel plugin that implements this. Here’s a
> codesandbox <https://codesandbox.io/s/4qkl21666w> with it loaded up.
>
> Thanks for your time!
>
> - Paul Gray
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190118/949e4027/attachment.html>

# David Teller (6 years ago)

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.

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
>

# Paul Gray (6 years ago)

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)

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 <dteller at mozilla.com> 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
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190118/69592098/attachment.html>

# Paul Gray (6 years ago)

I believe generators only work for certain monads, as explained here: stackoverflow.com/a/32192145

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 <pfbgray at gmail.com> 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 <dteller at mozilla.com> 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
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190118/58f32c5e/attachment.html>

# Isiah Meadows (6 years ago)

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.

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 <pfbgray at gmail.com> 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 <pfbgray at gmail.com> 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 <dteller at mozilla.com> 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
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190118/5431c6db/attachment-0001.html>