Subject: Re: [boost] Monad (was: Re: [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO)
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-25 19:53:45
On 25 August 2015 at 19:50, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2015 at 17:49, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > > But let me clear, if anyone can suggest a similarly short, instantly
> > > recognisable, uniquely standout name for monad<T>, I'm all ears.
> > OK - here's a concrete suggestion.
> > [snip]
> > these are all *outcomes* - of varying types of varying and unspecified
> > So rather than Thingy or Donkey, how about:
> > Outcome<R>
> I like Boost.Outcome and boost::outcome::basic_outcome<Policy>.
> Do these make sense however:
> outcome<T>: Can be empty/T/error_code/exception_ptr.
> result<T>: Can be empty/T/error_code.
> option<T>: Can be empty/T.
> If people like this, I can change Boost.Monad to Boost.Outcome very
A potential user POV:
1. I agree with Giovanni Piero Deretta and Andrey Semashev, to me (even
without having done any concrete Haskell
but after having learned what is a monad in the abstract/mathematical
I see naming a _type_ "monad" as very obscure as it does not tell me
what it does, just part of how it works.
It's exactly like if std::vector was named std::container as already
mentioned and that's exactly what I was
thinking when reading the previous discussions on the subject. I didn't
say anything because when talking about monads it's very
easy to endup with a confusing discussion.
2. I disagree with the naming argument you gave so far, mainly because it
seems that only you believe in it (but I might be wrong)
and your arguments don't rely on logic, observation or popularity (but
my pov is less important than specialists around here, and naming is hard
3. I have no problem with a _library_ that would be named Boost.Monad if it
provides different types using this useful ...err..."pattern", like
future and the thing you are trying to name at the moment. It's with a
type named monad that it is very confusing.
4. 'outcome' seems reasonable, it's a little vague but there was no more
specific propositons so far and it seems to suggest the way it is used.
It feels like a more general expected. There might be a more
apropriate name or a neologism to be made though.
Hope it helps.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk