Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 00:10
    som-snytt commented #12463
  • Sep 16 19:17
    steinybot opened #2184
  • Sep 16 18:26
    SethTisue commented #2172
  • Sep 16 18:25

    SethTisue on main

    Simplify the example used for c… (compare)

  • Sep 16 18:25
    SethTisue closed #2172
  • Sep 16 18:25
    SethTisue reopened #2172
  • Sep 16 17:50
    vlulla closed #2172
  • Sep 16 14:53
    lrytz edited #12463
  • Sep 16 14:53
    lrytz milestoned #12463
  • Sep 16 14:53
    lrytz assigned #12463
  • Sep 16 14:53
    lrytz labeled #12463
  • Sep 16 14:53
    lrytz opened #12463
  • Sep 16 12:59
    retronym labeled #9761
  • Sep 16 08:51
    scala-jenkins milestoned #9761
  • Sep 16 08:51
    lrytz review_requested #9761
  • Sep 16 08:51
    lrytz opened #9761
  • Sep 16 05:39
    nwk37011 synchronize #9752
  • Sep 16 05:38
    nwk37011 synchronize #9752
  • Sep 15 20:28

    SethTisue on 2.12.x

    2.12: new Scala SHA (post-2.12.… (compare)

  • Sep 15 20:28
    SethTisue closed #1485
trepidacious
@trepidacious
@SystemFw Yes. But it's still the case that to have a functor you need a type constructor rather than a type? I get that Just and Nothing fail even BEFORE that by not being a type OR a type constructor :)
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
(btw, the distinction between type and type constructor is not really useful imho except in conversational talking, they're all types afterall, and we have kinds to talk about them precisely)
a Functor needs to be over a type of kind * -> *
that's what you need
trepidacious
@trepidacious
@SystemFw Is * -> * not the same as a type constructor? I thought they were just different terms for the same thing?
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
yeah, but type constructor is not as precise
think Either
trepidacious
@trepidacious
@jmcardon I think I'm ok on that, we just ended up talking about two things at once, I didn't know about type constructors versus data constructors though
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
that's also a type constructor
but can't be a functor
Either a can
Jose C
@jmcardon
b-b-b-b-bifunctor!
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Ah because it has two type paramters
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
so I'd recommend just talking in terms of kinds
it's way more precise
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Is that * -> * -> * then?
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
yeah
and in haskell types and "type constructors" have the same representation anyway
trepidacious
@trepidacious
How do I pronounce *->*?
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
the term "type constructor" is imho only useful when explaining the difference with "data constructors"
star to star
that's how I do it
Rich
@Rich2
Could you implement Option in terms of Either?
type Option[A] = Either[Unit, A]
type Some[A] = Right[Unit, A]
val None = Left[Unit, Nothing](Unit)
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
you can also say Type to Type but it's more confusing since you are saying type a lot as well
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Makes sense. So that is kind of a single parameter function on types?
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
yeah, pretty much
with the usual caveats wrt to currying
Jose C
@jmcardon
star to star :P
jk
@Richtype yeah
trepidacious
@trepidacious
I should read up on the data constructor thing, but approximately Just and Nothing are ways of getting a value of type Maybe, but that does not make them types themselves?
Jose C
@jmcardon
you can
Option is essentially Either with less information
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
@trepidacious yes
Jose C
@jmcardon
you discard the information on the left parameter
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
Some and Nothing do two things
Jose C
@jmcardon
and you can implement option
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Sorry of type Maybe a I guess
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
one) they construct values of type Maybe a
two) they are runtime tags that are used to do runtime dispatch (pattern matching)
trepidacious
@trepidacious
@SystemFw So in Scala terms a constructor and an unapply?
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
yeah
well, they literally are tags
that are part of the runtime representation
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Like in a tagged union?
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
kind of like python "types"
yes, pretty much
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Thanks that's much clearer, I would probably have tripped over that later :)
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
types are compile time labels that are used to statically prove the absence of certain behaviour
tags are runtime labels that inform you about a specific data representation in memory
when python (or any other "strongly typed" untyped language) programmers talk about types
those aren't types, they are tags