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 -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 doesn't commute but is visually > >> symmetric, or Data.Sequence.<>, or the common use of <> to mean > >> concatination in pretty printers. > > > > Other good examples are && and ||. > > ..wha? But those ARE commutative. Unless you mean with respect to > strictness? > > -Brent > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe