Three patches for cabal

[Niklas Broberg]

> It's called TransformListComp because the "then f" syntax transforms a
> list using f (which has type [a] -> [a]) - not because the
> implementation works by transformation or anything like that! We
> considered but rejected GeneralizedListComp because it's too vague -
> what if someone comes up with another list comprehension
> generalisation in the future?

I see, my mistake in interpreting the naming.

However, I really don't agree this is a good choice. This feature is
documented and refered to all over the place as general(ised) list
comprehension, whereas a google search for either of the terms
"transform list comprehension" or "tranformation list comprehension",
with quotes, returns zilch (and without quotes returns nothing
Haskellish). It seems clear to me that we need to either do the change
I propose, which I think goes best with the principle of least
surprise, or rewrite the GHC documentation at the very least.

I can agree that generalised list comprehension could be a bit too
vague to be future sensitive - but I'd rather cross that bridge when
we get there!

Cheers,

/Niklas