4 ms·
> extremely cumbersome I'd say the opposite. I'd say it beats the hell out of Rust syntax, as Rust would force you to have staircase code here. No thank you.
by svnpenn 4y ago
> extremely cumbersome
I'd say the opposite. I'd say it beats the hell out of Rust syntax, as Rust would force you to have staircase code here. No thank you.
- saurik 4y agoFWIW, that's because Rust also doesn't have a Result monad, it merely has a Result type: in Haskell, you would provide the actual operations of the Monad trait for your Result type--the way in which values are converted into and used from within the type: two functions called return and (>>=)--which would allow you to delegate the execution of that abstracted boilerplate to the language's do-notation.