SIP for adding co-monadic comprehensions #709
Conversation
|
Hello @shimib! Thank you for submitting a SIP and helping us improving Scala. After the discussions in Scala Contributors and the scala/scala implementation, the SIP Committee will review this proposal this month. I think the proposal is great. I just have one suggestion: could you make it more obvious that this proposal enjoys of an existing implementation? The fact that you're already providing an implementation makes it easier to review, which I appreciate and I'm sure others will. Write a few sentences in the introduction and you're done. I'm happy to merge this as soon as it's ready so that we can all see it in the official SIP website 😉. |
|
@jvican done :) |
|
@jvican is there something more needed from me for merging this SIP? |
|
No 😄. Let's do it. |
|
:)
…On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 at 12:05 Jorge ***@***.***> wrote:
Merged #709 <#709>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#709 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACBGFYUhW4VsC7FDgNwo1XW_TO1CrQkQks5rokPJgaJpZM4MJKeI>
.
|
|
Hello @shimib, I'm adding this to the upcoming SIP meeting happening this month! Thanks for your work 😄. |
|
Thanks @jvican , I really appreciate it :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's an interesting effort, but I think it's premature. We should first see whether comonadic abstractions become popular before inventing syntax for them. Monadic abstractions with map/flatMap don't need for-expressions; they would be popular even if no such expressions existed.
Analogously I would like to see extensive use of comap and coflatmap in common Scala libraries before considering a syntax addition to better support them.
Scala's syntax is actually quite small, and I'd like to keep it that way.
No description provided.