Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
Although I appluad the semantics of the safe package, I'm not delighted with the idea of replacing our concise elegant standard library names with uglyAndRatherLongCamelCaseNamesThatCouldBePerlOrEvenJava though. Conciseness of expression is a virtue.
They aren't that long - merely an extra 4 characters over the standard one to indicate what the specific semantics are. If you can think of better names, then I'm happy to make use of them.
No, they're not, and it wasn't intended as a slight against your naming choice. I don't have a better suggestion. The problem I was really trying to point at, but didn't express at all well, was that a proliferation of similar functions with slightly different names (like Conor's four versions of zipWith) doesn't make a very elegant library API. It's nicer to settle on a smaller number of primitives. I don't actually have a solution that I think is "good" for the head/tail/take/drop issue :-( Jules