I’m trying to get the hang of Lwt, and I’ve run into this old Gist . I’ve taken some time to make it work but I’m having a problem with the >> operator on line 32. The compiler tells me this is an unbound value, so I guess this is an old operator that has been removed since, but I can’t find the rep…

Heya, The >> operator is equivalent to >>= fun () ->, i.e.: foo >> bar is foo >>= fun () -> bar. The >> operator is deprecated. Regarding beginner resources, there is the Mirage Lwt tutorial . Perhaps others can post more nice links. Note that the Mirage tutorial refers to Lwt.ts as threads, even t…

You may also be interested in reading the Real World OCaml chapter on concurrent programming together with @dkim ’s nice translation of the examples to Lwt .

Great, thanks a lot. >> is the kind of things that are hard to look up on Google. :wink: I’ve read Real World OCaml, but having the Lwt examples is great. I’ll also give a look at the Mirage tutorial, it looks promising. I’ll keep an eye out for any new material. :slight_smile:

The slightly bad news is that we consider >> to be deprecated these days, since it is part of the camlp4 syntax extension to Lwt. Most uses of it in our code are replaced by >>= fun () -> or similar uses. In general, there has not been much adoption of the PPX lwt extension in Mirage code since we…

There is also this simple server example and walkthrough ( code ) by @dmbaturin . It looks to be Camlp4-free.

Well, I don’t think I can help writing such a document, but I can provide feedback from a beginner standpoint, for what it’s worth.

@antron @avsm The manual states that >> is included in the Ppx syntax extension as well as the Camlp4 syntax extension. https://ocsigen.org/lwt/3.0.0/api/Ppx_lwt#2_Sequence Is the Ppx extension of Lwt considered to be deprecated, together with the Camlp4 extension?

@dmbaturin I’d love to work with you on that, though I have to do several other tasks in Lwt first (contributor documentation, some big PR reviews). @Richard-Degenne your feedback would be very much appreciated :slight_smile: @dkim Yes, it’s supported in the PPX, though you can disable it with a fl…

I was somehow convinced I made that thing disabled by default … So, yes, >> is mostly here because it was in the camlp4 extension. I’m of the opinion it should never have existed and I should not have ported it to ppx. It causes many issues, like users trying to write let f x = foo >> x or things l…

(>>) operator in Lwt?

Learning

dmbaturin May 30, 2017, 4:03pm 7

I still haven’t abandoned the idea to write a more structured and thorough, task-oriented tutorial. Doing it alone is hard though, so I really would like someone to collaborate.

Topic		Replies	Views
Deprecated '>>' Learning	2	649	February 3, 2019
Lwt not sequencing correctly? Community lwt	15	940	June 23, 2021
Lwt 3.2.0 released – we plan to change Lwt.bind Community lwt , announce	12	3805	March 13, 2018
Lwt now has let* syntax Community announce	10	3606	May 2, 2020
How to read ocaml code with funny operators Learning	9	1024	April 16, 2023

(>>) operator in Lwt?

Related topics