[xmonad] Re: Why isn't mappend for Query flipped?
ccshan at post.harvard.edu
Tue Jun 9 19:42:58 EDT 2009
Brent Yorgey <byorgey at seas.upenn.edu> wrote in article <20090609164904.GA5859 at seas.upenn.edu> in gmane.comp.lang.haskell.xmonad:
> The upshot is that
> m1 <+> m2
> does m2, and THEN m1....
> I propose to change the Monoid instance for Query so that
> mappend = liftM2 (flip mappend)
When m2 is done followed by m1, sometimes the effect of m1 "takes
precedence" (for example, when "doFloat" is pitted against "unfloat =
ask >>= \w -> doF (W.sink w)") but sometimes the effect of m2 "takes
precedence". I have had to reason about what takes precedence, and this
proposed change would make the reasoning harder for me, simply because
"flip" is one more level of indirection and I am already used to the
match between "mappend" and the mathematical convention for function
composition. So, I would say that the proposed change should be made
iff this new meaning of <+> can be documented clearly and predictably
without reference to the Endo Monoid notion of function composition.
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
We want our revolution, and we want it now! -- Marat/Sade
We want our revolution, and we'll take it at such time as
you've gotten around to delivering it -- Haskell programmer
More information about the xmonad