Names for small functions: just say no... Re: Data.List.join
jon.fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk
Wed Nov 1 08:59:34 EST 2006
"Samuel Bronson" <naesten at gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/30/06, Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Just so. But there are lots of languages where the stuff is
> > based on accidental choices of idioms by unknown bodies, and
> > I "[h]ates the lot of [th]em", so I don't want Haskell to go
> > that way. I'm really uneasy at the idea that we should be
> > in favour of rapid changes to libraries; I'd much rather
> > they were developed after a good deal of argument about the
> > mathematical properties.
> So, just because nobody has figured out what the
> "<weeble>" category is, you don't want it?
You need to read more carefully. I said "what would convince
me ..." I didn't say that the absence of a proof convinces
me otherwise. Everything /else/ I've been arguing convinces
> That seems like a silly reason... next you will be asking
> what mathematical construct "Show" relates to!
Of course not. But I do care that Show has showsPrec and
that elements of the type ShowS has useful compositional
properties. These things were thought about carefully.
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk
More information about the Libraries