Re: Names for small functions: just say no... Re: Data.List.join

"Samuel Bronson" writes:

On 10/30/06, Jon Fairbairn wrote:

...

Just so. But there are lots of languages where the stuff is based on accidental choices of idioms by unknown bodies, and I "[h]ates the lot of [th]em", so I don't want Haskell to go that way. I'm really uneasy at the idea that we should be in favour of rapid changes to libraries; I'd much rather they were developed after a good deal of argument about the mathematical properties.

So, just because nobody has figured out what the "<weeble>" category is, you don't want it?

You need to read more carefully. I said "what would convince me ..." I didn't say that the absence of a proof convinces me otherwise. Everything /else/ I've been arguing convinces me otherwise.

That seems like a silly reason... next you will be asking what mathematical construct "Show" relates to!

Of course not. But I do care that Show has showsPrec and that elements of the type ShowS has useful compositional properties. These things were thought about carefully. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk