What bad things would happen if I try to force this to be true? I dont
think this breaks the functor laws.
(let [trackable-f (fn [rv f] (f (deref rv)))] ; stable ref
(defn fmap [f rv]
{:pre [(reactive? rv)]}
; (track (comp f deref) rv) -- unstable fn ref breaks optimizations
(track trackable-f rv f)))
We implemented a few more of these almost category theory abstractions on
track. We find them necessary for writing fully reactive apps. If we can
make them compliant with cats typeclasses, a lot of operators will fall out
for free. I am fuzzy on which exactly typeclasses we would be correct to
implement, and what the consequences would be if they are "almost" correct
but violate, for example, monad laws due to hidden side effects. Anyone
thinking about this?
https://github.com/funcool/cats
http://funcool.github.io/cats/latest/#functor
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/The_Functor_class#The_functor_laws
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Reagent-Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to reagent-project+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to reagent-project@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/reagent-project.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
