Flipped function application

[Johan Tibell]

I'm against this proposal. If we think normal function composition (with
the order of the functions "reversed"), is harder to read, then having both
flipped and normal functions application is even worse, as you now have to
both and switch your mindset every time you come across code that does the
opposite of the code you just read.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Andreas Abel <andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de>
> wrote:
> > My take is that if a feature is repeatedly asked for (independently), it
> > can't be that bad and should be added...
>
> I strongly oppose this line of reasoning. Every feature has a cost:
> cognitive (you have to know about it), maintenance, restricting the
> name space for library authors (and remember that not all Haskell code
> is on hackage...) etc. Especially with the core language and base, I
> think the default should be to be conservative.
>
> Also, I don't think these kinds of things should be a majority rule.
> And especially one where the most vocal have the most votes...
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20131010/54d296cf/attachment.html>