| You are not capable of writing a PhD chapter. You lack the basic scientific thinking or method required. I suggest you focus on your core competency - chuckling. Here is some basic reading material for you. Lets see if you can follow this https://hackage.haskell.org/package/async-2.2.2/docs/Control... do a1 <- async (getURL url1)
a2 <- async (getURL url2)
page1 <- wait a1
page2 <- wait a2
This implements async await in Haskell via a library using Monads. Hint: you cannot do this in C via any library. You need to modify the language. If you are uneducated about Monads, you might think this is similar to some kind of C code. It is not!Here is the same do syntax being used to parse source files instead of doing async/await IO. Yes this parser will also perform backtracking etc, which will not be obvious to anyone who thinks this is some kind of transliteraton of C https://markkarpov.com/tutorial/megaparsec.html mySequence :: Parser (Char, Char, Char)
mySequence = do a <- char 'a'
b <- char 'b'
c <- char 'c'
return (a, b, c)
Hint: If you want to do something like this in C, you use yacc/bison, a parser generator tool - there is no library. And it is fucking ugly.Hint 2: There are monads for parsing, async IO, exceptions, nondetermenism, monte carlo ......... Hint 3: The parser libraries are 25 years old. Hint 4: Monad libraries represent less than 1% of PL research over the last 40 years. Hint 5: C# LINQ is basically a Monad. Hint 6: When confronted with something you don't understand, it is better to be quiet instead of opening your mouth and advertising your ignorance. Hint 7: If your conversational style consists of chuckling and providing "Hints", be prepared for receiving a taste of the same medicine. |
> This implements async await in Haskell via a library using Monads. Hint: you cannot do this in C via any library. You need to modify the language. If you are uneducated about Monads, you might think this is similar to some kind of C code. It is not!
it's still pretty much
> almost C-like syntax once again.
at no moment, not a single time, did I say in any way that I was talking about semantics but this is apparently a hill you wish to die on... so, by all means have fun !
Maybe you'll be more convinced by the exact text of the paper that introduced do-notation though ?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.11....
let me quote it :
> Using monads gives functional programming an imperative flavour. Gofer supports a, so called, do notation which makes this imperative flavour more apparent.
or, let me rephrase that whole thing for you in a language that you seem to speak quite fluently: