On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:25 +0300, Markus Läll wrote:
I think it's more of a readability thing, than replacing symbols for fun.
It's certainly, at best, an odd choice. Given the tools we have today, it is something that every indirect user of the library needs to worry about. It also drastically reduces the number of people who might contribute to the code, to those who have either memorized unicode code points or set up editor macros for characters that aren't on any keyboard I'm aware of. In return, you get... what? The ordinary Haskell names for things will still be around anyway, so now you just have to recognize two names for the same thing, one of which you may not even know how to type, and know that they mean the same thing. That said, I'm not in the WAI user pool, so this doesn't affect me in the short term. I'm just an interested observer. And while I hope that after another year or two of experience we might all end up using some common code that plays a role similar to WAI, a dependency on this package is nowhere close to the biggest obstacle to overcome to reach that point. -- Chris Smith