nothing too long, it’d be like ```fun (Traverse&l...

# arrow

[pakoito]

nothing too long, it’d be like

fun (Traverse<F>, Applicative<G>, Kind<F, Kind<G, A>>).sequence(): Kind<G, Kind<F, A>> =
  traverse(::it)

[CLOVIS]

Wow, that's a mouthful 😅 Do you have a simpler example, like Option.map ? (even if it doesn't exist anymore, it's just much simpler to think about...)

[pakoito]

map doesn’t need multiple receivers, that’s the thing

[CLOVIS]

Good point 😅

[pakoito]

fun (Functor<F>, Kind<F, A>).map(f: (A) -> B): Kind<F, B> =
  map(f)

[pakoito]

but for the sake of it, let’s pretend we’re doing it this way 😄

[CLOVIS]

We really need an IDE plugin at some point that displays Kind<F, Kind<G, A>> as F<G<A>>, it's definitely not beginner-friendly currently

[pakoito]

fun (Applicative<G>, Option<A>).map(f: (A) -> B): G<Option<B>>

[pakoito]

something like that

[CLOVIS]

From what I can read about typeclasses and multiple receivers, the “ideal Kotlin syntax” would be something like that, right?

@with<Functor<F>>
fun F<A>.map(f: (A) -> B): F<B> =
  map(f)

(That example might be useless, I just want to understand how the concepts I'm learning in Category Theory and Type Theory will be used in Kotlin)