safe-exceptions VS recursion-schemes

In case anyone is interested, there's a long discussion on this ticket. Still hoping somebody will respond to my comment.

In safe-exception and uniftio it was decided to rethrow the original exception exactly because they decided to use uninterruptibleMask, see here for details.

unliftio (and safe-exceptions) contains a very controversial choice of of using uninterruptibleMask inside its bracket. The argument for it seem to come from this issue and comes from the fact that one of the most popular resource finalizers hClose is interruptible. This is a simplification. It is interruptible only if a file handle is used concurrently. Such usage of file handles is rather odd, and it suggest wrong architecture, for example leaking file handles using concurrency. When using file handles in synchronous setting, what withFile pattern encourages, hClose will not block and thus mask is enough.

Reasonably proud of my part 2 solution, although would like to try using a recursion scheme rather than unstructured recursion:

Yeah, that project is pretty much at the bottom of my list, unfortunately. My top projects these days are mgmt, klister, recursion-schemes, and hint... And that's already too much!

In a programming context, recursion schemes can be used to write recursive (or corecursive) functions, by automating/abstracting away the common boilerplate part of actually doing the recursion. They take the form of polymorphic higher-order functions, which can be imported from a library like this classic one.

Maybe I didn't link the best post. It is unfortunately the only one I know that uses Rust. If you are able to read Haskell, the documentation for the recursion-schemes package might be a better resource?

Writing something as a type of fold over an infinite sequence is nicer than using recursion directly in my opinion. See: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/recursion-schemes

Consider recursion schemes! It let's you separate the logic of how your recursion is structured on your data, and the logic of what you're doing on each recursion stage. So e.g. you can write the core logic of a recursive linked list summation as just fun x accum -> x + accum, and then you just find the appropriate recursion scheme to pipe the list values into x and handle recursing to build accum (a catamorphism in this case)

It's a pretty complicated bug, documented in details at https://github.com/recursion-schemes/recursion-schemes/issues/50

It’s also trivial and easy in Haskell — you just need an instance of `Foldable` or `Traversable` on your collection, and then you can fold or traverse it in a configurable way. Or for recursive structures, use https://hackage.haskell.org/package/recursion-schemes. Or even just pass a traversal function as an argument for maximum flexibility.

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/recursion-schemes is the "normal" library for this type of generalized folding. It even contains Base instances for Maybe and Either.

I've been working on a system which uses recursion-schemes to annotate a recursive type. The annotated tree itself is pretty simple; at each level, we pair the annotation with the base functor, or