Re: [MirageOS-devel] Using Result instead of Option in libraries

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:31, Hannes Mehnert <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> [again raising the issue: could some mailing list admin please set the
> reply-to to the list -- there's no need to send the message to the
> individual and to the list!]
> 
> On 14/10/2016 15:23, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, Hannes Mehnert <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 14/10/2016 15:08, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>>>> Yeah, once we agree on the conventions :-)  Once we have everything using 
>>>> Result.t, we also need to find the right set of combinators.
>>>> 
>>>> - There is Rresult for basic Result.t handling: 
>>>> http://erratique.ch/software/rresult/doc/Rresult.html
>>>> - Lwt_result has a slightly different set of combinators 
>>>> https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/master/src/core/lwt_result.mli
>>>> 
>>>> So I guess we need to decide if we publish an Rresult_lwt.t which lifts up 
>>>> "('a,'b) result" into an Lwt.t with the same API as Rresult otherwise.
>>> 
>>> Based on earlier discussion from January 2015, I put some combinators in
>>> mirage-types.lwt (maybe they should live elsewhere)
>>> https://github.com/hannesm/mirage/blob/network-error/types/runtime.lwt/m_infix.mli
>> 
>> Ah, missed those, thanks!
>> 
>> Looks like we have a number of different conventions for the binds.  Do we 
>> want to have the same set of operators with and without Lwt support (and 
>> open the Infix module locally as needed) or separate operators that be used 
>> alongside each other?
> 
> My experience (reading other people's code, see e.g. [0]) is that
> overloading the syntax of bind is bad, since it is hard to comprehend
> locally.
> 
> Certainly, pure libraries not using Lwt can easily reuse >>= and >|=,
> but as soon as you depend on both Lwt.t and result, I'd prefer to have
> new character sequences for the binds (and not numerous `let open ___
> in`).  The >>=? and >>|? originate from Ashish' suggestion
> (https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/mirageos-devel/2015-02/msg00019.html)
> -- I'm open to any suggestions about the specific character sequences,
> as long as we can agree on some.

This convention seems reasonable to me, and I agree about the confusion about 
overloading bind.

-anil

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel