Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

[Siddhanathan Shanmugam]

There hasn't been any activity in this thread for two weeks. Summary of the
discussion so far:

+4 in favor
+1 weakly in favor
-1 for not being accompanied by ffor

I'll let the committee take over.


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Elliot Cameron <eacameron at gmail.com> wrote:

> Heh, I suppose that doesn't help my case much, does it? I "derived" the
> name for my own uses many times prior to seeing it elsewhere (most notably
> Reflex: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/reflex/
> docs/Reflex-Class.html#v:ffor). Like I said, the name "ffor" isn't wildly
> important IMO. I don't want to start the "fmap should be map" debate all
> over again either.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:51 PM, John Wiegley <johnw at newartisans.com>
> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "EC" == Elliot Cameron <eacameron at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> EC> FWIW, I'm less concerned about the precise name of ffor, although it
>> seems
>> EC> sad to to lose the obvious correlation with fmap.
>>
>> Ah, it wasn't until you said that that I understood why "ffor", but now it
>> makes some sense. :)
>>
>> --
>> John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
>> http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20170309/82582226/attachment.html>