Skip to content

Module 06 Refactoring Guide

Concept Position

flowchart TD
  family["Python Programming"] --> program["Python Functional Programming"]
  program --> module["Module 06: Monadic Flow and Explicit Context"]
  module --> concept["Module 06 Refactoring Guide"]
  concept --> capstone["Capstone pressure point"]
flowchart TD
  problem["Start with the design or failure question"] --> example["Study the worked example and trade-offs"]
  example --> boundary["Name the boundary this page is trying to protect"]
  boundary --> proof["Carry that question into code review or the capstone"]

Read the first diagram as a placement map: this page is one concept inside its parent module, not a detached essay, and the capstone is the pressure test for whether the idea holds. Read the second diagram as the working rhythm for the page: name the problem, study the example, identify the boundary, then carry one review question forward.

This guide closes Module 06. The point is not to admire monadic vocabulary. The point is to make sequencing, context, and failure propagation easier to read and safer to change.

Stable comparison route

  1. run make PROGRAM=python-programming/python-functional-programming history-refresh
  2. open capstone/_history/worktrees/module-06/src/funcpipe_rag/fp/
  3. compare the chaining and context helpers with the configured pipeline surface
  4. read capstone/_history/worktrees/module-06/tests/test_monad_laws.py, test_reader_laws.py, test_state_laws.py, and test_writer_laws.py

What to refactor toward

  • dependent steps composed without repetitive propagation code
  • context passed explicitly instead of read from globals
  • logs and side information carried as data when that keeps the flow honest
  • exception-heavy code rewritten into reviewable containers and laws

Exit standard

Before Module 07, you should be able to say which context travels through the flow, how failure propagates, and what tests prove the composition rules still hold.