These are chat archives for ramda/ramda

20th
May 2019
Fabien Bourgeois
@Yakulu
May 20 06:10
Yes, and tcomb seems more progressive : you don't have to type the whole ecosystem
(and you can use for runtime validation if wished)
oomusou
@oomusou
May 20 08:32
is there any tool can check Haskell type signature for Ramda ?
Galileo Sanchez
@galileopy
May 20 13:29
Good Day everyone, what was the canonical way to work with say, Maybe<User>, Maybe<State> , and I have a function User,State => Something, I think I am looking for lift, ain't I?
and in this case lift would just do, maybe1.chain(m1 => maybe2.map( m2 => func(m1, m2))) is that correct?
if that is still correct, is there a common name for such pattern in case I want to have it as a method on a maybe and use it like maybe1.map2(binaryF, maybe2)
Ben Briggs
@ben-eb
May 20 18:10
@galileopy Yep, R.lift(binaryF)(maybe1, maybe2)
Galileo Sanchez
@galileopy
May 20 19:28
thanks @ben-eb
Ben Briggs
@ben-eb
May 20 21:01
No worries :)
John Jackson
@johnridesabike
May 20 21:28
re: tcomb, I tried it out with a project and it seems pretty nice. I like being able to define interfaces with just plain javascript. Also, its func method can create a wrapper for functions which type-checks and curries them automatically
it seems to play really nicely with ramda too, although I didn’t test that specifically