13 Nov
2006
13 Nov
'06
5:48 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:02:36AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:27:12PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
I'm we're going to use this forever more, then a name more meaningful than repeatM_ might be appropriate (personally, I have to check every time whether it is replicate or repeat that is :: Int -> a -> [a]).
now it will be three times easier to remember, as you only need to remember what one of repeat, repeatM, and repeatM_ do to easily determine what the other two do. standard naming conventions are very nice when they fit so well, as they do in this case.
I'm not so sure. The only connection between repeatM_ and lists would be the near-useless repeatM.