News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust and the Blub Paradox. Parent comment

Re:Rust and the Blub Paradox by u320 on Saturday January 23, 2016 @12:38PM (#10959116)
Yes but the Rust type system cannot express monads, so they aren't monads in the type sense (they don't implement a specific Monad trait).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust and the Blub Paradox by steveklabnik on Saturday January 23, 2016 @12:47PM (#10959153)
Fun Trivia Fact: Rust's type system was[1] Turing complete. So you could actually have monads. You just wouldn't want to.

1: The program that proved this no longer compiles, so we're not sure if the type system is or is not at the moment.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust and the Blub Paradox by eximius on Saturday January 23, 2016 @10:02PM (#10961272)
I would love to see this program. Maybe even spend some time trying to get it to compile.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust and the Blub Paradox by steveklabnik on Friday January 29, 2016 @06:16PM (#10999310)
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2o6yp8/brainfck_in_ru... was one of them
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust and the Blub Paradox by Manishearth on Sunday January 24, 2016 @03:53AM (#10961978)
I think this is still possible with associated types. You can imitate higher kinded types with associated types, just that you wouldn't want to.

I recall someone posting a Monad or Collection HKT example when associated types were proposed.

[ Parent | on HN ]