[davidfstr]

Looks like this library is serious. Most of what I see can be written more succinctly using existing Python functionality:

  1. Maybe -> Optional[T]
  2. Result -> Union[SuccessT, FailureT]
  3. Future, FutureResult -> concurrent.futures.Future[T]
  4. IO ->  don't use this; none of the standard library I/O supports it

I do appreciate the use of "container" as a term instead of "monad".

I also appreciate the typechecker enhancements being put forward by their custom plugins.

[emblaegh]

None of these has the functionality that the library offers, i.e. providing an interface to compose functions that consume and produce these types.

[BerislavLopac]

I believe the recent idiomatic recommendation for the first two is to use the union type expression:

  1. T | None
  2. SuccessT | FailureT

[epgui]

This is potentially quite helpful, but would you happen to have a source for that?

[TrickardRixx]

The Union Type PEP[0] suggests that the "bitwise or" syntax is equivalent, but cleaner than typing.Union

[0]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#types-union

[epgui]

Thanks! I missed that.

[BerislavLopac]

They're both perfectly valid; but the expression style [0] is shorter and more obvious, especially compared to Optional. Even the documentation for Optional states [1]:

  Note that this is not the same concept as an optional argument, which is one that has a default.

[0] https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/stdtypes.html#types-uni...

[1] https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/typing.html#typing.Opti...