What is the point of the 'What the bleep' names in haskell?
Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or "###"? Why not use a more descriptive label for functions? Daryoush
On Jul 17, 2009, at 15:06 , Daryoush Mehrtash wrote:
Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or "###"? Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
Because symbols can be used as infix functions directly, whereas alphanumerics have to be wrapped in `` for infix. And infix is often easier to read. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
System.Console.Curses? Sorry couldn't resist ...
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Don Stewart
dmehrtash:
Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or "# ##"? Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
Where are those functions defined?? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Am Freitag, 17. Juli 2009 21:06 schrieb Daryoush Mehrtash:
Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or "###"? Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
It’s for the same reason that mathematicians say 2 + 3 instead of plus(2,3): it’s more readable at times. :-) Best wishes, Wolfgang
participants (5)
-
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH -
Daryoush Mehrtash -
Don Stewart -
Justin Bailey -
Wolfgang Jeltsch