
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Schilling
On 25 July 2011 08:22, Paul R
wrote: 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.
Well, in this case I think it can be beneficial because the pronunciation depends on the underlying monoid. E.g., sometimes it would be "append" or "plus", other times "dot" or "times". It can, of course, be useful to also have a good name for the generic operator. In this case I'd call it "diamond".
After a big, backwards-incompatible library overhaul it would be nice if it ended up being (++) or (+).
-- Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.