On 14 Aug 2011, at 15:25, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Thomas Schilling wrote:
My argument would be that since Monoid is used more commonly, it should get the nice and short name (<>).
If it is defined in Data.Semigroup, then it can be used for both.
I am in favour of <> for Monoid mappend, indeed I thought this had already been decided a long time ago. I oppose any dependency (at this stage) on Semigroup. For one thing, I don't know what a semigroup is. There is next to no Haddock documentation for the semigroup package, so I am not further enlightened by looking there. As a consequence, I have no idea how to make my types which are currently Monoids into SemiGroups. For instance, although I can guess at "sconcat", what semantics is "replicate1p" supposed to have? What algebraic laws am I supposed to be respecting? Regards, Malcolm