[flagged]
I think that writing such code, if only for educational purposes, can be really helpful in actually understanding how the state "flows" during the monadic bind/return. Typical monad instantiations of Maybe do not give such deep insight (at least to me).
> Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should.
Of course you should, where would be the fun in that?
Higher mathematics in a nutshell.
>Of course you should, where would be the fun in that?
Also higher mathematics in a nutshell.
Narrator asks: Who should we put in charge of <<thing that will effect people in a tangible way>>?
Not the mathematicians! echo the crowd in unanmity.
Narrator asks: Who will we delegate the task of <<abuse of notation>> to?
The crowd grumbles, arguing amongst themselves whether such a question even warrants an answer. A mathematician stands up, proclaiming "We'll take it!", following up with, "Once you understand the notation involved in my previous statement, you will understand why this outcome is inevitable."
The crowd, seeing the wisdom of not even embarking on that tribulation, assents to the delegation, given the task of undoing the abuse of notation for the legibility of the layperson is also delegated to the aspiring mathematician.
Scene opens on current day...
Are they? But in the Nothing you have 2 identical members (`nothing' without arguments), won't that throw an exception?
To borrow Rust syntax (pun intended):
enum Nothing {
nothing,
just
nothing
};
enum Maybe<T> {
Nothing,
Just(T),
}