[Haskell-cafe] Re: Improved documentation for Bool

[Jonathan Cast]

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 19:33 +0000, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> roconnor at theorem.ca wrote:
> > I noticed the Bool datatype isn't well documented.  Since Bool is not 
> > a common English word, I figured it could use some haddock to help 
> > clarify it for newcomers.
> 
> My only problem with it is that it's called Bool, while every other 
> programming language on Earth calls it Boolean. (Or at least, the 
> languages that *have* a name for it...)

Except C++?  But then again:

> But I'm far more perturbed by names like Eq, Ord, Num, Ix (??), and so 
> on. The worst thing about C is the unecessary abbriviations; [sic] let's not 
> copy them, eh?

I agree.  I've always felt that 

class EqualsClass randomTypeSelectedByTheUser => TotalOrderClass
randomTypeSelectedByTheUser where
  compareXToY :: randomTypeSelectedByTheUser ->
randomTypeSelectedByTheUser -> OrderingValue
  lessThanOrEqualTo :: randomTypeSelectedByTheUser ->
randomTypeSelectedByTheUser -> Boolean
  lessThan :: randomTypeSelectedByTheUser -> randomTypeSelectedByTheUser
-> Boolean

was both more understandable to the reader, and easier to remember and
reproduce for the writer.

Or, in other words, leave well enough alone; we should always err in the
direction of being like C, to avoid erring in the direction of being
like Java.

jcc