>> A package for compose-n and compose-3 to like 10 or 20? Yes
I like the idea of _small packages that do one thing_ better than _one-stop all-utility packages_ ... but do what you think makes sense. >> Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to >> improve the built-in type. >> > > From my naive viewpoint, I don't really see other natural ways of improving > the type of compose other than what I wrote, the problem being that writing > the type for arbitrary-arity composition would require specifying equality > between the return type of every function and the argument type of the > preceding one. I'm not sure even Coq and Agda have that facility directly, > certainly not Haskell or Idris to the best of my knowledge. I don't expect > them to go beyond binary compose, because it's sufficient to do any > compositions. It's that in Racket I find writing chains of nested compose > calls somewhat clunky. Typed Racket already has some domain-specific ideas to support the #:rest-star option. The equality-chaining constraint is definitely new, but doesn't seem out of the question. https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/blob/master/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/rep/type-rep.rkt#L586-L612 I think other languages (Coq Agda Haskell Idris) have a harder time here because they want to support currying. And even if they added #:rest-star logic, their users might call it an anti-pattern because it doesn't fit with partial application. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFUu9R5o7WMvewXTLgafdX-Ei%2B6MnsM13xHW-pauSGs3scTJBA%40mail.gmail.com.
