Re: Alternative syntax for interacting with the store monad

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi Simon,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 at 17:50, Justin Veilleux <terramorpha@cock.li> wrote:
>
>> (define (list-bind xs f)
>>   (apply append! (map f xs)))
>>
>> (define list-pure list)
>>
>> (with-monad list-bind list-pure
>>             (let ((x (bind '(1 2))))
>>               (pure
>>                (list
>>                 x
>>                 (bind '("thing1" "thing2"))))))
>
> In [1], Josselin proposed something à la Haskell:
>
>     (mdo %store-monad
>       (drv <- (gexp-derivation "myderivation" test-gexp))
>       (output <- (return (derivation->output-path drv)))
>       (built-derivations (list drv))
>       (return (format #t "~a~%" output)))
>
> Well, the conclusion seems that « it’s normally not necessary to use the
> monadic interface unless you’re getting into internals or writing a new
> tool. »  Therefore, I do not know if improving the syntax is worth.

That's not a super convincing argument to me (I sometimes dabble with
the monad, and the reason I don't do it more often at the REPL is partly
because I need to retrain myself how to use it every time :-)).
Something more intuitive could help, though I agree having multiple
flavors of one interface could lead to poor consistency in the code
base...

I'm divided.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim