I like to take a leaf out of Prince's book and refer to it as "the
function formerly known as mappend"
August Sodora
augsod@gmail.com
(201) 280-8138
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Paul R
Hi Café,
Thomas> I think (<>) is fairly uncontroversial because: Thomas> (...) Thomas> 2. It's abstract. i.e., no intended pronunciation
How can that be an advantage ? A text flow with unnamed (or unpronounceable) symbols makes reading, understanding and remembering harder, don't you think ? I really think any operator or symbol should be intended (and even designed !) for pronunciation.
Some references state that the monoid binary operation is often named "dot" or "times" in english. That does not mean the operator must be `dot`, `times`, (<.>) or (<x>) but at least the doc should provide a single, consistent and pronounceable name for it, whatever its spelling.
Thomas> For this reason, I think a larger change would have to come with Thomas> a larger library re-organization. Johan Tibell suggested Thomas> something like that a while ago: instead of lots of little cuts Thomas> (backwards incompatible changes), a working group of activists Thomas> should redesign a whole new (incompatible) alternative set of Thomas> core libraries.
This would be a great initiative, really !
-- Paul
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe