Re: Mark partial functions as such

(Sending this again, as I forgot to include the list) Hi Richard, I think that's a good idea! What about typeclass methods where totality / partiality depends on the instance like Foldable's foldl1? What do we mark partial in this case? The method declaration? The instance? Both? Cheers, Simon Am Fr., 31. Aug. 2018 um 02:13 Uhr schrieb Richard Eisenberg < rae@cs.brynmawr.edu>:

Just to clarify here: all I mean is that we should include the word "Partial" in the Haddock documentation -- no deprecation or warning, just documentation.

Richard

...

On Aug 30, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

Proposal: Mark partial functions in `base` as partial

Motivation: I'm about to teach Haskell to a classful of beginners. In my experience, they will soon reach for functions like `head` and `tail`, because pattern-matching is foreign to them. I would love just to be able to say "Don't use partial functions", but many students will not easily be able to tell partial functions from total ones.

I do expect this problem to work itself out rather quickly, and then students will be able to identify partial functions, but loudly marking partial functions as partial seems like a small service to everyone and a bigger one to newbies. I don't see any downsides.

Thoughts?

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

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