betaveros / noulith Goto Github PK

Generic from with

An chaining operator like elixir's |> but appends additional arguments i.e. a zip b <| c <| d is a zip with b with c with d is zip(a, b, c, d).

I think <| will look nice when you want to provide an argument per line:

a zip b
  <| c
  <| d
  ;

Function parameters should be the last parameter

When you inline function arguments with multi-line lambdas, any arguments following multi line lambda become unreadable. i.e. from start in the following:

rng fold (\accum, el ->
(
    # multi line
    # lambda
)) from start;

So I think having fold1 :: [a] -> (a -> a -> a) -> a and fold :: [a] -> a -> (a -> a -> a) -> a is better alternative than an optional from as you could write:

rng fold start <| (\accum, el ->
(
    # multi line
    # lambda
));

Good luck with this language 👍.

(not expecting support, feel free to skip — adding some issues as I come across them)

Generally I would expect:

X = foo bar;
print baz (X);

to be equivalent to

print (baz (foo bar));

...i.e. extracting something into a variable doesn't change the semantics¹.

But here it doesn't seem to be. This works:

X := {"foo"}.keys;
print pop X;

But this doesn't:

print (pop ({"foo"}.keys));

PARSE ERROR: can't to_lvalue
print (pop ({"foo"}.keys));

    (expr 22:13-22:20)
    at first expr in call arg list (22:8)
    at first expr in assign LHS (22:1)

Is my mental model wrong for what's going on? I didn't completely understand the error message either.

Thank you!

1. Using _ for both lambdas and discards seems confusing. Have you considered some alternatives?
2. Would it be possible to extend the readme regarding pattern matching (in function args and in switches)?

Hi,

Just a note to point out that input files for Advent of Code are copyrighted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/adventofcode/wiki/faqs/copyright/inputs/

The rest of your documentation is quite complete. Here's a toy example

noulith> print! for(i <- 65 to 70) yield [i, chr(i)] into dict;
{67: "C", 66: "B", 69: "E", 65: "A", 68: "D", 70: "F"}

goodproject

That is all

I'm not sure whether you're here to answer questions — no worries at all if you're not.

Does this fail because indexing is lower precedence than a function call?

X := [1,2,3];

print X[0];

# ERROR: type error: Chain cannot use nonblock in operator position: [1, 2, 3]
# print X[0];

#    at op 1/1 (14:7-8)
#    at ;-sequence(2/4) (12:13-18:9)

But this seems to work:

X[0].print;