The Weird and The Wonderful

class Angle<T> = Radian<T> | Degree<T>
  (+) :: Angle a -> Angle b -> Angle c
  (+) x = match x 
    | Radian z => \y -> z + toRadian(y)
    | Degree z => \y -> z + toDegree(y)

public double addRightAngle(double degrees) => degrees + 90; //Fails if you pass in radians
public double addRightAngle(double radians) => radians + (90*(pi/180)); //Fails if you pass in degrees
public Angle<double> addRightAngle(Angle<double> angle) => angle + new Degree(90); //Succeeds in all cases
public Angle<double> addRightAngle(Angle<double> angle) => angle + new Radian(1.5708); //Succeeds in all cases

Jon McKee wrote:

Here's some pseudo-code:

Jon McKee wrote:

This effectively turns your function into a pure function that returns an impure Reader with that environment tuple as input and the result as output

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Btw, thanks for knowing what you're talking about. Makes these conversations much better.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

That one I gotta look into man. My understanding of pure functions is that all inputs are deterministic. So, not following how shifting parameter order changes that, since non-deterministic input is still going into the routine. Will check out the link though.

public bool saveToDatabase(Database db) => val => { db.save(val) };
public bool saveToDatabase(Value val) => db => { db.save(val) };

public readonly record struct Speed(double Amount);

Richard Deeming wrote:

An appropriately-named enum can certainly make the calling code easier to read than a bunch-o-bools, although it can lead to some interesting definitions[^].

charlieg wrote:

I'm thinking of the Mars Climate Orbiter that lawn darted due to a units conversion issue.

charlieg wrote:

Every engineering system should be in metric. Period. If you want to convert something to English - that's a presentation issue,

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

type
  ShortStr = string[255];
  TTextBuf = array[0..127] of Char;
  TElfWordTab = array [0..2] of Cardinal;

John Chadwell wrote:

I don't see any value in step 3 or 4. Seems like unnecessary layers of code.

namespace CRUDLibrary
{
    public partial class frmCRUD : Form
    {
        public static string dbName = "Contacts.db";
        private string result;
        public string fn { get; set; }
        public string ln { get; set; }

Leonardo Pessoa wrote:

Just curious where did you manage to get that book.

from Quote:[^]

You have much experience also and most likely that means you have developer discipline (do things right the first time so you don't shoot yourself in the foot later).
Developer discipline doesn't seem like it is being taught in modern times -- probably influenced by dynamic languages like JavaScript which also encourage people to "type" code (not design it and write it).

So, for this modern world i believe the movement is to "put the discipline in the code" so those who come after are "forced" to use it the way we have designed it. In the past, we would've read the legacy code and kept the parts that seem right.

Juan Pablo Reyes Altamirano wrote:

my first stance is that all newcomers must be educated (a little) and eventually they should learn to educate themselves (a lot).