Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

There hasn't been any activity in this thread for two weeks. Summary of the discussion so far: +4 in favor +1 weakly in favor -1 for not being accompanied by ffor I'll let the committee take over. On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Elliot Cameron wrote:

Heh, I suppose that doesn't help my case much, does it? I "derived" the name for my own uses many times prior to seeing it elsewhere (most notably Reflex: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/reflex/ docs/Reflex-Class.html#v:ffor). Like I said, the name "ffor" isn't wildly important IMO. I don't want to start the "fmap should be map" debate all over again either.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:51 PM, John Wiegley wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

> "EC" == Elliot Cameron writes:

EC> FWIW, I'm less concerned about the precise name of ffor, although it seems EC> sad to to lose the obvious correlation with fmap.

Ah, it wasn't until you said that that I understood why "ffor", but now it makes some sense. :)

-- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries