|
|
|
|
|
|
by nerdponx
1004 days ago
|
|
|
But Python doesn't have any concept of a monad, so what would do-notation even be in Python? And who is the "everyone" using do-notation? I don't see any analogous syntax in Lua, Javascript, Ruby, or Perl. In Python there is a nice tower of abstractions for iteration, but nothing more general than that, so it makes perfect sense IMO to use the syntax that directly evokes iteration. The existing syntax is meant to mirror the syntax of a nested for loop. I agree that maybe it's confusing, but if you want to go from a multi-for comprehension to an actual nested for loop, then you don't have to invert the order. |
|
|
It could work on the same things that Python's current list comprehensions work on. I'm just suggesting a different syntax. Comprehensions in Haskell originally worked for all monads too.
> And who is the "everyone" using do-notation? I don't see any analogous syntax in Lua, Javascript, Ruby, or Perl.
I meant that within Haskell, everyone uses do notation rather than comprehensions.
> The existing syntax is meant to mirror the syntax of a nested for loop. I agree that maybe it's confusing, but if you want to go from a multi-for comprehension to an actual nested for loop, then you don't have to invert the order.
You have to invert half of it, which I find more confusing than having to completely invert it. do-notation style syntax (e.g. Scala-style for/yield) would keep the order completely aligned.