Show Maybe's "do notation" similarity to nested if-then-else statement #48
Conversation
src/Data/Maybe.purs
Outdated
| -- | return x; // Nothing | ||
| -- | } else { | ||
| -- | var x' = x.unwrapJust; | ||
| -- | var y = // ... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since x and y are free variables in the first expression, I think they should probably be free variables in the pseudocode too. My main concern, though, would be that .isNothing, .unwrapJust, and wrapIntoJust might not be clear enough: I'd guess the people who are able to work out what these functions/methods mean in this pseudocode are likely to be those who already understand what's going on anyway and don't need any additional explanation. I feel like it might be best to use prose rather than pseudocode here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I get that my editing for core library docs can be quite demanding, so I'm happy to take a stab at this myself if you'd prefer.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer not using prose. Some examples, like this one, I think are easier to understand when you can see two code examples next to one another.
If you want to submit something, go for it!
I could also break down the bind statements to this before showing the JavaScript version:
case x of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just x' -> case y of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just y' -> Just (f x' y')There was a problem hiding this comment.
That’s a really good point. Inlining everything so that it’s just pattern matching sounds great to me!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I'll update it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated. Just waiting for CI to pass.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I was imagining that the pattern matching version would be instead of the pseudocode. I have to admit I'm sort of struggling to see the value of the pseudocode example in addition to the pattern matching version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm.... It has value for someone who is familiar with JavaScript or other C-family languages, who is still not yet comfortable with PureScript syntax.
Otherwise, I'm not sure it's needed anymore if they understand pattern matching.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed it in latest commit, so we can get this merged. We can always add it again later if people still have trouble with what's currently written.
No description provided.