Real World about fantasy-land HOT 12 CLOSED

Thanks! It'll be interesting to see what others think about the changes. I find it much harder to read without the names of the algebras and laws (something which was asked for).

But I'm obviously biased since I wrote most of it.

from fantasy-land.

I think it would be worth naming the laws. I'll add those in in a second. It would be useful when writing test suites if nothing else.

I think naming the objects is nice, but I think it should be at the end of the description of the method, rather than at the top level. Consider that most of your intended audience is much more familiar with JavaScript than Category Theory. Keep in mind that .map and .concat behave exactly like they do currently on arrays, which will make them feel instantly intuitive when labelled like that. .of also behaves exactly like .of will in ES6 if it makes it I think (needs checking, and this spec will need to pick another name if that's not true).

I think empty may be better as a name than zero if it doesn't conflict with anything that already exists. An empty array makes intuitive sense for example.

I think .chain may not be the most intuitive name either. I'd consider .flatten which seems very nice for arrays, and not totally un-intuitive for promises. Unfortunately .then would be pretty un-intuitive for arrays, but I guess it's not the end of the world.

from fantasy-land.

I've added in comments to link back to functional programming. Hopefully this is now approachable for people from both directions.

from fantasy-land.

+1 for empty. This makes sense to me thinking in terms of data structures rather than numeric values. It's not as pure algebraically, but it's a bit more concrete.

@ForbesLindesay see #2 for a lengthy discussion about .chain

Overall, @ForbesLindesay, great work - seems very approachable.

from fantasy-land.

@jden I wanted to use empty but was afraid it would already be in use. Don't think so?

from fantasy-land.

I'm not aware of any current uses. At least not in core EcmaScript or node.js

from fantasy-land.

I think empty is safe. No mention of it on MDN, only _.isEmpty in lodash/underscore comes to mind.

from fantasy-land.

Awesome, if I have no objections by the end of today then I'll use it.

from fantasy-land.

Ping re empty ^

from fantasy-land.

+1 for empty. Using zero would be misleading in some contexts (e.g., Product)

from fantasy-land.

Reference: 2091648

from fantasy-land.

This issue is still showing up on my personal "open issues mentioning you" list, limiting its utility. Could you please consider closing it?

from fantasy-land.