Content deleted Content added
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) →We should dehaskelize it: +Gabriel Gonzalez' How to desugar Haskell code |
→Style not that of an encyclopedia: add section on some of the style in this article |
||
Line 114:
:No, you're definitely not being dumb or missing some deep secret; while the choice was intentional, it was mainly a compromise for the pseudocode. I thought it could act as a (metalanguage?) hint that the monad laws aren't necessarily programmed, but ultimately logical propositions about a potential monad. They may or may not be true, based on whether the object is actually verified to be a monad.
:If anyone wants to change it, I'm definitely not opposed. I'd just stay away from the single = sign since that's used for assignment in so many programming contexts, but a == or === is pretty common for equality in several languages. Ideally though, we'd still want to emphasize the laws (typically) aren't checked within the program, but outside of it logically. [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
== Informal style ==
Occasionally I'm seeing sentences that read more like a blog post than an encyclopedia:
<blockquote>
With just a little extra functional spice on top, this Maybe type transforms into a fully-featured monad.
Having to rewrite functions to take Maybes in this concrete example requires a lot of boilerplate (look at all those Just expressions!).
</blockquote>
I'm not up on the latest Wikipedia guidelines, so I'm not confident about what is allowed. I'm just curious to what the current thinking is from anyone who knows more about this topic. [[User:Modify|modify]] 15:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
| |||