29 Jan
2008
29 Jan
'08
10:42 a.m.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Thomas Schilling wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 12:18 +0000, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
1. In favor: - Twan van Laarhoven - Isaac Dupree - Don Stewart - Neil Mitchell
3. Opposed to any additions to the base library: - Bulat Ziganshin
Is concatMapM vs concat <$> mapM really such an improvement? Maybe the proposal should rather be to remove concatMap, for it is merely a 3-character shorter version of concat . map...
"(concat . map f) xs" is 5 characters longer than "concatMap f xs" ! Alternatives concat $ map f xs concat (map f xs) What about zipWith concatMap vs. zipWith (\f -> concat . map f) So far I used concatMap a lot and thus I think it's addition was valuable.