Proposal: alpha-rename the type signatures of foldl, foldl', and scanl to be consistent with foldr and scanr

[Dan Burton]

Do note that my proposed "r" solution does not solve the problem of scanl
vs scanr. (!!!)
Another reason to dislike it.

Would you also call input types 'i', or maybe 'a' because they are
> arguments, or 'p' because they are parameters?


I wouldn't. The allure of using "r" is that when you see "r" *earlier* in
the type signature,
then you know it must be the same as the "result". Using a mnemonic for
function inputs
doesn't carry the same benefit, although for something like Conduit "i"nput
and "o"utput make sense.

If at all, the letter 'z' would be more logical


I'd be happy with "z" just as much as "r".
"z" is nice because it obviously doesn't stand for anything,
but it still holds mnemonic value for the concept of "the end".
Let the "z versus r" bikeshedding wars begin!

[z] works for functions with more parameters


Is that really a concern? It takes 18 distinct parameters to get from a to
r.

-1 for using anything longer than "acc". I'd be ok with just "acc" as is
used currently in docs for mapAccum*, though I'd prefer a single-letter
variable.

-- Dan Burton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20121015/6321692a/attachment.htm>