On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 20:55 +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2006-08-14 at 12:00PDT "Iavor Diatchki" wrote:
Hello, I never liked the decision to rename 'map' to 'fmap', because it introduces two different names for the same thing (and I find the name `fmap' awkward).
I strongly concur. There are far too many maps even without that, and having two names for the same thing adds to the confusion.
If it goes in that direction it'd be nice to consider the issue of structures which cannot support a polymorphic map. Of course such specialised containers (eg unboxed arrays or strings) are not functors but they are still useful containers with a sensible notion of map. The proposals to allow this involve MPTCs where the element type is a parameter. That allows instances which are polymorphic in the element type or instances which constrain it. Duncan