Hurl, a terrible (but cute) idea for a language
81–84 of 84 posts
Re: Hurl, a terrible (but cute) idea for a language
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big difference here is to understand the program with Algebraic effects you now need to know _where the code was called from_. If you ask for an effect to come from higher up the call stack, does that mean part of the function signature needs to include that the call stack must be able to handle the effect? And if that's part of the call stack, why not just make that an explicit function?
> Does that mean part of the function signature needs to include that the call stack must be able to handle the effect? Some people would argue that the effects a function may raise are indeed a part of a function's type and for it to type check it must be within scope of a handler for that effect. Think of it like function coloring, a function with the "async/await" effect means all callees must be invoked either wi…
I think these effects would ultimately lead to a bunch of hard to find bugs, all to replace the functionality of a callback.
Re: Hurl, a terrible (but cute) idea for a language
#83FYI Bitlocker shows ntietz as a virus and won't let me access it.
Thanks for letting me know! I couldn’t find anything about Bitlocker as antivirus but assuming you’re talking about BitDefender (which also has flagged it). I’ve submitted a false positive report.
Re: Hurl, a terrible (but cute) idea for a language
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
call/cc as the only control flow primitive!
Algebraic effects use delimited continuations (and this appears to match toss/return). Call/cc captures an undelimited continuation. Totally different.