Well, I'm biased, because I like what the package does.

I guess I can see how it could be a showstopper for someone who doesn't want to dive into *another* something, that doesn't actually affect how the program performs. But this is only when you read (and want to contrubute to) code, that uses it directly. Otherwise, if using unicode, there should be nothing to worry about -- the equivalent names are always there to use...


--
Markus Läll

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Chris Smith <cdsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
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