Derek Elkins wrote: > No one doubts that there is room for improvement. However, the > direction is better documentation, not different names. Better names is > fine, but I have not heard any remotely convincing alternative for any > of the above terms.
After thinking about it, I think you are right. But, there is a problem -- nobody is stepping up to write that documentation. If we can't get it, then perhaps we ought to fall back on better names. If we *can* get it, all the better, because these things need good docs, regardless of what they're called. I can see it now: a monoid by any other name would smell as sweet... -- John _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
