On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 22:30 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
(?) is also undefined in Prelude.
Which i think is a good thing.
I think it's quite nice to use (?) as an operator in higher order
functions.
Eg.
foldr _ z [] = z
foldr (?) z (x:xs) = x ? foldr (?) z xs
Mattias Bengtsson moonl...@dtek.chalmers.se writes:
(?) is also undefined in Prelude.
Which i think is a good thing.
I think it's quite nice to use (?) as an operator in higher order
functions.
Also, it clashes with the implicit parameters extension, and combining
the extension with a
Robert Greayer schrieb:
I'm sure there's some important historical reason... but why isn't ''
used in something more prominent than the fgl package? I understand
why it's not used for bitwise AND in Data.Bits (I assume because the
corresponding bitwise '|' operator isn't available), but all
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid class
had a more
concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend` b. I wonder if other
people are of a
similar opinion, and if so, whether this is worth submitting a
While I like the idea of (++) as mappend to some extent, two objections
immediately come to mind:
1.) While I like the appeal to the PVP to export a version of (++) from
Data.Monoid and I think this has worked out well for new modules like
Control.Category, I'm not sure that with a module that has
On Jul 4, 2009, at 01:17 , Jason Dusek wrote:
What is the proper name for the operation on functions of a
functor, anyway? The name `fmap` seems to driven by an analogy
with `map`.
Cale (.) /Cale
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com
system
This discussion points to a wider issue: at some stage we should look
at pulling all the nice new stuff into Haskell prelude. I'm looking
at you, Data.Foldable,Traversable.
Also, throw out `map`. ;)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
2009/07/03 George Pollard por...@porg.es:
This discussion points to a wider issue: at some stage we
should look at pulling all the nice new stuff into Haskell
prelude. I'm looking at you, Data.Foldable,Traversable.
Also, throw out `map`. ;)
What is the proper name for the operation on
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jason Dusekjason.du...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/07/03 George Pollard por...@porg.es:
This discussion points to a wider issue: at some stage we
should look at pulling all the nice new stuff into Haskell
prelude. I'm looking at you, Data.Foldable,Traversable.
2009/7/4 Jason Dusek jason.du...@gmail.com:
2009/07/03 George Pollard por...@porg.es:
Also, throw out `map`. ;)
What is the proper name for the operation on functions of a
functor, anyway? The name `fmap` seems to driven by an analogy
with `map`.
This is getting a little off topic, but I
Ross Paterson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:55:39AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer. I'll
build a fiddled base package that rewires the Monoid class to have (++) be the
binary operator, and mappend as a synonym for it.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Ross Patersonr...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:55:39AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer. I'll
build a fiddled base package that rewires the Monoid class to have (++) be
the
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:11 PM, David Menendezd...@zednenem.com wrote:
In Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Thomas Schillingnomin...@googlemail.com
wrote:
2009/7/1 David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
Just because the compiler can figure out what I mean because it has a great
type system, I might
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:46:37PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
I'm not the person who would have to maintain that arrangement. I guess
that's a call for the people who would have to do the work. There is
already a haskell98 package, I think, which is the first step?
The Prelude is in the base
Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Raynor Vliegendhart shinnon...@gmail.comwrote:
We could use (Control.Category..) as an operator, but this would
require an additional wrapping layer if we wish to use the existing
Monoid instances:
import Prelude hiding (id, (.))
import Control.Category
It is claimed that making ++ become another name for the
Monoid mappend operation will break some Haskell 98 code
such as
append = (++)
That example can easily be fixed by adding a type signature, no?
append :: [a] - [a] - [a]
append = (++)
In ghci, at any rate, using
You know, this might be the right time to start expanding our
vocabulary beyond seven bits. Since we're likely to keep mappend
around as an alias for some time, people would have a grace period to
adjust.
How about U+2295 (circle with plus inside it)?
Or, if we would like to stick to the
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Ketil Maldeke...@malde.org wrote:
You know, this might be the right time to start expanding our
vocabulary beyond seven bits. Since we're likely to keep mappend
around as an alias for some time, people would have a grace period to
adjust.
How about U+2295
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting John Meacham j...@repetae.net:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative. Something
like () or (+) would be better.
I tend to agree. Moreover, and I realise this may be a losing battle,
I want (++) to be the generic
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jochem Berndsenjoc...@functor.nl wrote:
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
I tend to agree. Moreover, and I realise this may be a losing battle,
I want (++) to be the generic operator.
I totally agree.
So do I.
David.
___
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 18:31 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
Of course in Text.PrettyPrint,
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing. As John says
it's already a monoid operator for Data.Sequence and Text.PrettyPrint.
I agree, if we can't use + and + then is the next best thing.
;)
Jules
___
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Jules Beanju...@jellybean.co.uk wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing. As John says
it's already a monoid operator for Data.Sequence and Text.PrettyPrint.
I agree, if we can't use + and + then is the next best
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:00:50AM -0400, a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
Quoting
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with anything
better than mappend! ;)
-Ed
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:00:50AM -0400, a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM
On 1 Jul 2009, at 16:46, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with
anything better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not
equals from other languages. Personally I'm in favor of +, simply
because it looks
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2009, at 16:46, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with anything
better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not equals
from
I suggest you all add your name and vote here:
http://doodle.com/4yrfd7qaw5man3rm
Perhaps we'll find one of the options is clearly in favor.
Martijn.
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for
I'm sure there's some important historical reason... but why isn't ''
used in something more prominent than the fgl package? I understand
why it's not used for bitwise AND in Data.Bits (I assume because the
corresponding bitwise '|' operator isn't available), but all the other
single-character
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 04:53:05PM +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 1 Jul 2009, at 16:46, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with
anything better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not equals
from other
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Jules Bean ju...@jellybean.co.uk wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing. As John says
it's already a monoid operator for Data.Sequence and Text.PrettyPrint.
I agree, if we can't use + and + then is the next best
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Duncan Coutts
duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.ukwrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing.
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer. I'll
build a fiddled base package that rewires the Monoid class to have (++) be
the
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Duncan Coutts duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk
wrote:
I agree, if we can't use ++ then is the next best thing.
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer.
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:55:39AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Okay, here's a tentative plan that will help to figure out the answer. I'll
build a fiddled base package that rewires the Monoid class to have (++) be the
binary operator, and mappend as a synonym for it. I'll import the Monoid
Ross Paterson wrote:
Generalizing (++) will break some Haskell 98 code, e.g.
append = (++)
I think that's a show-stopper.
Is the monomorphism restriction the only situation in which stuff breaks?
Martijn.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
2009/7/1 Martijn van Steenbergen mart...@van.steenbergen.nl:
I suggest you all add your name and vote here:
http://doodle.com/4yrfd7qaw5man3rm
Perhaps we'll find one of the options is clearly in favor.
Doesn't doodle allow multiple choice tests? Requiring to pick only
one is kind of
2009/7/1 Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk:
I'm rather fond of the () suggestion, but would be happy with
anything better than mappend! ;)
I find it rather ugly, it has a lot of connotations of does not equals
from other languages.
Forget Pascal: think of it as a diamond.
Yep, it's
2009/7/1 David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
I like this thinking as well. I kind of wish Haskell didn't overload
operators to begin with but oh well :-)
Just because the compiler can figure out what I mean because it has a great
type system, I might not be able to figure out what I mean a year
Thomas Schilling wrote:
Haddock should allow documentation on instance
declarations...
+1!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Bryan O'Sullivanb...@serpentine.com wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend` b.
I wonder if other people are of a similar opinion, and if so, whether
Obviously `mappend` is good enough as it is.
Choosing (+) or () are just for prettifying code.
Generalizing (++) not only makes the code prettier, but also brings Monoid
into the Prelude.
You can either Do It Right(tm), or be conservative and try to maintain
backwards compatibility as much as
In Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Thomas Schillingnomin...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/7/1 David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com
Just because the compiler can figure out what I mean because it has a great
type system, I might not be able to figure out what I mean a year from now
if I see ++
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend` b.
I wonder if other people are of a similar opinion, and if so, whether this
is worth submitting a libraries@ proposal over.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually worry that this will make people think, more incorrectly, that
Monoids are about appending stuff only.
I think that adding a graphical operator as a synonym for mappend would
actually help to address that,
I love the idea, but its tricky to come up with one that is good that won't
break a lot of user code that imports Data.Monoid unqualified.
-Edward Kmett
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.comwrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if
Isn't ++ itself the perfect Monoid operator? Lambdabot seems to think so.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 13:04, Edward Kmettekm...@gmail.com wrote:
I love the idea, but its tricky to come up with one that is good that won't
break a lot of user code that imports Data.Monoid unqualified.
-Edward Kmett
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually worry that this will make people think, more incorrectly, that
Monoids are about appending stuff only.
I think that adding a
Except that in this case the operator is associative :P
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend` b.
I wonder if other people are of a similar opinion, and if so, whether this
is
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.eduwrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend`
b.
Am Dienstag 30 Juni 2009 20:56:10 schrieb David Leimbach:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.eduwrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the
Monoid class had a more
On 30 Jun 2009, at 22:19, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Dienstag 30 Juni 2009 20:56:10 schrieb David Leimbach:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I excellently think your proposal is a correct assessment.
Well then, here's the library enhancement ticket:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3339
___
Haskell-Cafe
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 02:54:38PM -0400, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid
class had a more concise operator for infix appending than a `mappend` b.
I wonder if
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Meachamj...@repetae.net wrote:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative. Something
like () or (+) would be better.
It's too similar to the applicative (*), and implies all sorts of
things like different types of the two arguments
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Dougal Stanton ith...@gmail.com wrote:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative. Something
like () or (+) would be better.
It's too similar to the applicative (*), and implies all sorts of
things like different types of the two
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 03:39:39PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative.
It does seem to imply some asymmetry between the arguments.
Something like () or (+) would be better.
(+) is used in Control.Arrow.
() is used in Data.Sequence, but as
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 03:39:39PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative.
It does seem to imply some asymmetry between the arguments.
Well, the canonical instance of
David Leimbach wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu
mailto:byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if
the Monoid
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM, John Meachamj...@repetae.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 02:54:38PM -0400, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
Not really, think of '++', which doesn't commute but is visually
symmetric, or
Ok. When nobody can agree on a graphical operator can it be
shortened to mop and munit? (Personally I'm for (++). (Yeah, I
know.))
-ljr
Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than
G'day all.
Quoting John Meacham j...@repetae.net:
(+) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative. Something
like () or (+) would be better.
I tend to agree. Moreover, and I realise this may be a losing battle,
I want (++) to be the generic operator.
I understand the
G'day all.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something
bidirectional like or + feels more commutative than associative
to me.
Quoting John Meacham j...@repetae.net:
Not really, think of '++', which
64 matches
Mail list logo
