In most imperative languages understanding "x.name" requires knowledge of
the type of x to understand what "name" refers to.
Now with TDNR in Haskell, "name x" requires knowledge of the type of x to
understand what "name" refers to.
As a newcomer, I think some of the coding conventions favored by
haskell-coders to be write-only, but in this case I wonder why this is
less readable in Haskell than in, say C?
Alexander
On 10 November 2010 19:05, Albert Y. C. Lai
Typed-directed name resolution brings Haskell closer to a write-only language; that is, an ambiguous phrase made total sense to the author when the author wrote it, but an independent reader will need extraordinary effort to disambiguate.
{-# LANGUAGE TypeDirectedNameResolution #-}
import EnglishMonad import Cities(buffalo) import Animals(buffalo) import Verbs(buffalo,buffalo)
{- why two buffalo's from Verbs? because they are of different types: one is present verb type and the other is past participle verb type. ever heard of Type Directed Name Resolution? -}
buffalo = buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo
main = runEnglishMonad buffalo
{- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo-}
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe