| ▲ | nostrademons 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
Interesting. I hadn't heard of algebraic effects, but they remind me a lot of the Common Lisp condition system, or delimited continuations, or monads in Haskell. There's even a shoutout to monads in the top Google result for the context: https://overreacted.io/algebraic-effects-for-the-rest-of-us/ I assume that the connection to capability security is that you use the effect handler to inject the capabilities you want to offer to the callee, and their access is limited to a particular dynamic scope, and is then revoked once it exits from that block? Handler types effectively provide for the callee and define what capabilities it may invoke, but the actual implementation is injected from a higher level? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | black_knight 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Your description sounds about right! I learned to understand it [0][1] as a way of creating free monads by wishing for a list of effects at the type level. Then later you worry about how to implement the effects. Solves the same problem as monad transformers, but without commit to an order up front (and without all the boilerplate of mtl). My idea is that you should be able to create and pass around typed capabilities for effects, and then transparently get them “effectuated at their place of creation”. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||