Whilst taking the point, could I just pit out that, its not just about the form of the final program. One of the

strengths and appeals of FP id the opportunity for program transformation via a useful

repertoire of algebraic law, cf the work on Squiggol, and the numerous pearls by folk including Richard Bird et.al..

This work befits from having concisely-expressed rules that open the road to manipulation - long-winded

identifiers suitable for large libraries are not necessarily ideal here.

Going back to the original proposal, I'm not bothered, I would probably just ignore a singleton library

in favour of :[]. I'm -1 on philosophical grounds.

I'm used to teaching FP to undergrads and half the battle is encouraging people to think functionally, to

make use of the underlying mathematics and computational model rather than transliterate

Python or <insert your favourite 'bete noir'> into Haskell. That means thinking of building programs from

functional fragments combined by suitable glue, and appreciating that data constructors can be used

as functions Yes takes beginner's time to recognise some of the patterns, but when the light dawns,

the transformation is rewarding. I've lost count of the number of jaws I've had to pick off the floor :)

So I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill. If it will really improve people's programming

lives then fine, But I' not convinced, and but in fretting over final code can we please not lose

sight of the larger picture and battle..

regards

David Duke.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:21 PM Ignat Insarov <kindaro@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd like to derail this conversation into remembering the "C, Unix hoax" joke.
https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/unix-hoax.html

> We stopped when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
>
> for(;P("\n"),R--;P("|"))for(e=C;e--;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("| "+(*u/4)%2);

We humans find it easier to think in words, which are singleton blobs
of sense requiring no parsing, no compilation, but immediately
obvious. The "monkey face" here is not one, not two, but four distinct
blobs. This is in fact a technical argument against it, though
referring to the technic of human cognition rather than machine's.

In this perspective, is it not clear that we should strive away from
symbol soup idioms? Let us write programs for people to read.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 20:03, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - `(:[])`: Subjectively ugly.
>
> I consider "subjectively ugly" to be a non-technical and thus really
> weak argument to dismiss the list-idiomatic ninja-robot-operator (:[])
> which also happens to be shorter than the proposed alias for it. I for
> one don't see a significant benefit for adding a redundant synonym to
> `Data.List` and are thus -1 on this.
>
> > singleton :: a -> [a]
> > singleton x = [x]
> _______________________________________________
> 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