cleue

5 ms·

1.
by cleue 3y ago
This is also one of my favorites, but it can get even more verbose. However this is how the go type system is designed to work with covariance. Without the `~` operator these functions could only be used for a much smaller range of inputs.
2.
by cleue 3y ago
1) I would argue that with fp style you might want to structure your code into small, pure functions, anyway, for testability reasons. Also many functions from the go library are already pure functions with one input and one output, so they
3.
by cleue 3y ago
Because in some cases the aspect whether or not the language is functional is not the only decision criteria for the choice of language. If it was, I would absolutely recommend to consider a language than go. But if go is selected because o
4.
by cleue 3y ago
Unfortunately there is no way to use variadic arguments in a type safe way in go (yet) - except for the special case that all arguments are of the same type. This is why some of the functions that work with many arguments (such as `Pipe`, `
5.
by cleue 3y ago
The example actually does handle all errors, because the values are of type `Either` and the composition functions take this into account. If you would like to handle a particular error sitation explicitly, e.g. to enrich it with context or
6.
by cleue 3y ago
I agree that the code will become unreadable as soon as you try to use inline functions (since there are no lambda expressions). However, the fp style (independent of this library) encourages to decompose the codebase into small and - if po
7.
by cleue 3y ago
One of the design aspects is to make a distinction between functions with and without side effects (pure). In a way to tell these apart by looking at the function signature without having to read the function body. The library uses a functi
8.
by cleue 3y ago
There exist at least some examples as part of the go docs, e.g. here https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/IBM/fp-go/either#pkg-examples or https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/IBM/fp-go@v1.0.19&#x