I am aware that when framing
? as a monadic/applicative construct, the mechanism implementing
What I don’t understand is how you agree that, semantically,
? operates like a conjunction (“then maybe”), but still prefer a verb. The verbs, in your illustration above, are
This is doubly hard to reconcile with your argument that
? is a “happy path” construct. Conjunctions pair well with the happy path, verbs do not.
foo.bar, then maybe baz, then maybe biz, then maybe buz
foo.bar, therefore baz, therefore biz, therefore buz
with your preferred nomenclature:
foo.bar rethrow, baz rethrow, biz rethrow, buz.
foo.bar propagate, baz propagate, biz propagate, buz.
foo.bar bubble, baz bubble, biz bubble, buz.
I agree that no single word will capture the full extent of the operation, but the above demonstration shows that a conjunction offers more clarity than a verb. The conjunction captures the conditionality of the construct, a quality unmatched by rethrow, propagate, or bubble.