On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:56 +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > Neil Mitchell wrote: > > Hi > > > >> Although I appluad the semantics of the safe package, I'm not delighted > >> with the idea of replacing our concise elegant standard library names > >> with uglyAndRatherLongCamelCaseNamesThatCouldBePerlOrEvenJava though. > >> Conciseness of expression is a virtue. > > > > They aren't that long - merely an extra 4 characters over the standard > > one to indicate what the specific semantics are. If you can think of > > better names, then I'm happy to make use of them. > > No, they're not, and it wasn't intended as a slight against your naming > choice. I don't have a better suggestion.
Isn't there sort of a tradition for 'unsafe' to mean dangerous territory, beyond mere domain limitations for functions, so to call this 'safe' may be a bit misleading? Similarly, I expect foo and foo' to be equivalent, except for strictness properties, but perhaps an underscore could be used for slightly different behaviors (interpretations, as it were)? "tail_" or "zip_", anyone? -k _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
