Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax
spam at scientician.net
Fri Aug 19 07:18:03 UTC 2016
On 2016-08-19 08:34, monkleyon--- via ghc-devs wrote:
>> Honestly, I don't care particularly much which exact word it becomes
>> just as long at isn't some 'cute' or obscurse word.
>> 'magic' belongs in the 'cute' category, I think and 'bespoke' belongs in
>> the latter.
> I'm native German. I never was in any English-speaking country in my
> life. Almost all my English media is from the USA. I'm not a tailor. Yet
> "bespoke" was familiar and instantly tells me what's important.
> So I may just be one point on the map, but I am not sure your argument
> that it is "obscure" is valid, sorry.
> That being said, let me add a package of "awwww"s for all the times an
> English native complains that he has to learn a new word to program.
> Take a portion and pass it along, would you? ;)
> Apropos learning words: while searching for information if "bespoke" is
> really obscure (I found none in either direction) I stumbled upon some
> (I think) not-yet-mentioned possible options
I said it was *needlessly* obscure. There's absolutely no reason to
choose such a word in this case.
> * custom(i[zs]ed)?
This seems to convey the exact opposite when used in the programming
domain. When I 'customize' something or specify a 'custom' $something, I
expect that I, the programmer, am going to provide the
> * tailored
Just as 'bad' as bespoke -- and still has a sort of feeling of
'customized'. Bespoke at least has the very strong connotation of
"getting someone else to do it for you" whereas tailored doesn't *quite*
have that. (All, IMO, of course.)
More information about the ghc-devs