26

Re: Monads

Hello, hi_octane, you wrote: _> Here that in a rock enrages (and probably in  though I on it and do not write, but  sometimes I read) - so this that that this do-notation is necessary in an explicit form. And in a rock - so it  in for-comprehension which stumbles on the elementary things (type normally  in this  to put). Really it is impossible to add sugar in the compiler that he recognized the code on monads, and is correct it  without the do-notation? Like the task it is not more difficult than that which solves the compiler C#  function with async/await. Something such (if I correctly understood) is, but not in  in idris http://docs.idris-lang.org/en/latest/tu … l#notation in DDC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG8AErq … mp;index=6

27

Re: Monads

Hello, WolfHound, you wrote: WH> it does not turn out. The dictionary does not have order. At the list is. At the list the order implied: List <Value> === Dictionary <int, Value> Access to list elements on an index all associative. WH> further there is a set and a multiset. Both of them are necessary. WH> but here such here parametrization from the dictionary them you will not receive. Dictionary <Key, List <Value>> (if  the device is not basic) WH> If to speak about generalization of collections it is necessary to begin with something type of it WH> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_67_0/l … index.html It simply dial-up of indexes over the data. All counter in storage of these indexes - for primitive types is stored value of a key, and the link to value of a key in the data. But it again implementation subtleties.