Comments on: The Optional Monad In C++, Without the Ugly Stuff https://www.fluentcpp.com/2017/07/07/optional-monad-cpp-without-ugly-stuff/ Jonathan Boccara's blog Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.3 By: xtofl https://www.fluentcpp.com/2017/07/07/optional-monad-cpp-without-ugly-stuff/#comment-667 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:41:00 +0000 https://www.fluentcpp.com/?p=1578#comment-667 I’m wondering if it would be possible to build an expression-tree-like structure that can ‘transform’ the (almost) natural syntax we’re used to into something that handles failure.

This (meta-) transformation could wrap plain argument types in `optional`, and plain return type into optional return type.

Then this

f4(f4(f3(f2(f1(_1), f1(_2)))))

could be written as 

 _(f4) (_(f4) (_(f3) (_(f2) (_(f1) (_1), _(f1)(_2)))))

and all constituents could ‘automagically’ be decorated/lifted and composed to result in a failure aware function.

]]> By: Michael Steuer https://www.fluentcpp.com/2017/07/07/optional-monad-cpp-without-ugly-stuff/#comment-399 Wed, 12 Jul 2017 05:49:00 +0000 https://www.fluentcpp.com/?p=1578#comment-399 In reply to Shreyans.

Yeah, Python makes this monad pattern a lot nicer when it comes to client code then C++.

Xuanyi Chew did a PyCon talk showing just that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNwV3wR4JjA

]]> By: Shreyans https://www.fluentcpp.com/2017/07/07/optional-monad-cpp-without-ugly-stuff/#comment-389 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 19:05:00 +0000 https://www.fluentcpp.com/?p=1578#comment-389 This kinda looks like declaring decorators in python terminology. It takes a function as input and returns another function which in turn uses the passed function. Python provides a great syntactic sugar through decorators for such scenarios where you want to change the meaning of a function.

]]>