Update schala example code

This commit is contained in:
greg 2018-03-17 23:38:37 -07:00
parent 5ab7c2d254
commit 638afd47cc

View File

@ -1,30 +1,30 @@
fn main() {
# comments are scripting-style
#{ but can also be
//comments are C-style
/* nested comments /* are cool */ */
}# blocks
}
@annotations are with @-
# variable expressions
// variable expressions
var a: I32 = 20
const b: String = 20
there(); can(); be(); multiple(); statements(); per_line();
#string interpolation
//string interpolation
const yolo = "I have ${a + b} people in my house"
# let expressions ??? not sure if I want this
// let expressions ??? not sure if I want this
let a = 10, b = 20, c = 30 in a + b + c
#list literal
//list literal
const q = [1,2,3,4]
#lambda literal ?? maybe? not sure how this should work
q.map(|item| { item * 100 })
//lambda literal
q.map({|item| item * 100 })
fn yolo(a: MyType, b: YourType): ReturnType<Param1, Param2> {
if a == 20 {
@ -36,35 +36,35 @@ fn main() {
for {
# infinite loop
//infinite loop
}
#iteration over a variable
//iteration over a variable
for i <- [1..1000] {
} #return type is return type of block
} //return type is return type of block
#while loop
//while loop
for a != 3 || fuckTard() {
break
} #return type is return type of block
} //return type is return type of block
#monadic decomposition
//monadic decomposition
for {
a <- maybeInt();
s <- foo()
} return {
a + s
} #return type is Monad<return type of block>
} //return type is Monad<return type of block>
# let statements too!!
// let statements too!!
for (a = 20
b = fuck) {
a + b
}
# pattern-matching
// pattern-matching
match <expr> {
Some(a) => {
@ -74,21 +74,23 @@ fn main() {
},
}
#syntax is, I guess, for <expr> <brace-block>, where <expr> is a bool, or a <arrow-expr>
//syntax is, I guess, for <expr> <brace-block>, where <expr> is a bool, or a <arrow-expr>
# type level alises
// type level alises
typealias <name> = <other type> #maybe thsi should be 'alias'?
#what if type A = B meant that you could had to create A's with A(B), but when you used A's the interface was exactly like B's?
# maybe introduce a 'newtype' keyword for this
/*
what if type A = B meant that you could had to create A's with A(B), but when you used A's the interface was exactly like B's?
maybe introduce a 'newtype' keyword for this
*/
#declaring types of all stripes
//declaring types of all stripes
type MyData = { a: i32, b: String }
type MyType = MyType
type Option<a> = None | Some(a)
type Signal = Absence | SimplePresence(i32) | ComplexPresence {a: i32, b: MyCustomData}
#traits
//traits
trait Bashable { }
trait Luggable {
@ -98,8 +100,6 @@ fn main() {
}
# lambdas
#
|x,y| { }() #is probably fine
const a = |x: Type, y|: RetType { <statementblock> }
const a: X -> Y -> Z = |x,y| { }
// lambdas
// ruby-style not rust-style
const a: X -> Y -> Z = {|x,y| }