I agree that Data.Function is appropriate. The Data.Foo modules seem to follow a common pattern of a value type + some special values (eg: empty) and functions to operate on them. const and id are the "special values" and the remaining combinators are functions on that type, namely functions. I think the name Data.Function also helps underscore that these functions treat their argument functions more or less as data. Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
The question is where in the module hierarchy should such a function live? It does not really belong with Data.List, or indeed any particular data structure module.
I would like to propose a new module for functions like this, which are in some sense "purely" functional, that is, they do not involve any data structure at all, just functions. Other examples would be
const id flip (.) ($) ($!)
Any suggestions for a good name for such a module? Data.Function does not sound right to my ears.
I also like a special module for that. Why not Data.Function? _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries