Re:State Monad for the Rest of Us
by neonsunset on Friday August 09, 2024 @12:57PM
(#41203533)
The sibling comment looks way closer to port of Go which is rather unidiomatic C#. I understand where it is coming from, but there is a much terser and type-safe way to express it:
#pragma warning disable CS8509 // The switch expression does not handle all possible values.
// Justification: The switch expression is exhaustive, and Roslyn emits optimal default guard.
// In AOT, ILC should be able to statically prove by whole program view that only two subclasses of Tree exist and optimize it away.
// In practice, it seems null check and recursive nature of the call prevent it for now. It is still compact and fast codegen however.
var treeWith3Leaves = new Tree.Node(
new Tree.Leaf(),
new Tree.Node(
new Tree.Leaf(),
new Tree.Leaf()));
var leaves = NumberOfLeaves(treeWith3Leaves);
if (leaves != 3) {
throw new Exception("Huh, something went wrong.");
}
static int NumberOfLeaves(Tree tree) {
return tree switch {
Tree.Leaf => 1,
Tree.Node n => NumberOfLeaves(n.Left) + NumberOfLeaves(n.Right)
};
}
abstract record Tree {
public record Leaf: Tree;
public record Node(Tree Left, Tree Right): Tree;
}
Once we have type unions[0], the syntax could be easily promoted (assuming current proposal state) to e.g. union Tree {
Leaf;
Node(Tree Left, Tree Right);
}
Or a bit lower-level variant: record Node(Tree Left, Tree Right);
union struct Tree {
Leaf;
Node;
}
This will allow to remove exhaustiveness suppression and not pay for (house of) leaves.[0]: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/18a527bcc1f0bdaf54...
There's a sibling comment about porting it to C#. The Rust version will be less frustrating than the C#, but it is the same kind of bad.
On Rust specifically, this happens because Rust is a low level language.