ANN: prelude-safeenum

[John Lato]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Petr Pudlák <petr.mvd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Čt 30. květen 2013, 19:56:07 **CEST, wren ng thornton napsal:
>
>  On 5/30/13 3:54 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013, wren ng thornton wrote:
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------**--------------
>>>> -- prelude-safeenum 0.1.0
>>>> ------------------------------**--------------
>>>>
>>>> The prelude-safeenum package offers a safe alternative to the Prelude's
>>>> Enum class in order to render it safe. While we're at it, we also
>>>> generalize the notion of enumeration to support types which can only be
>>>> enumerated in one direction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am concerned that we are using 'safe' for two very different meanings:
>>> 'safe' in the sense of SafeHaskell and unsafePerformanceIO and 'safe' in
>>> the sense of the package 'safe' and your safeenum. For my taste, there
>>> is no need to coin new terms for partiality and totality. Could we just
>>> call total functions total instead of safe?
>>>
>>
>> I consider partial functions to be unsafe, and I don't think I'm alone
>> in that regard.
>>
>>
> I'd say most people here do. The problem is that (as Henning T. wrote) the
> term "safe" is very general, and it's used already in the sense of "Safe
> Haskell" and "unsafe..." functions. So I also support his suggestion for
> naming it "total" or something like that instead of "safe". Otherwise, I
> like the idea of your package and I'm fond of this improvement.


The name "safe" to denote "total, opposed to the more standard partial
variants" predates Safe Haskell.   See e.g.
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/safe-0.2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130531/20242958/attachment.htm>