On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Henning Thielemann <schlepp...@henning-thielemann.de> wrote: > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb: >> Yitzchak Gale <g...@sefer.org> writes: > >>> While useful, I think its ubiquity to simplicity ratio is not >>> high enough to justify either depending on MissingH >>> just for that, or adding it to a base library. >> >> Just like the swap :: (a,b) -> (b,a) function a lot of people were >> discussing on librar...@? > > I have 'swap' in my utility-ht. > >> In general, I agree. > > Problem in Haskell is, that it allows for a high degree of > modularization such that most components become trivial. Does that mean > that we should not define simple functions at all, which in the extreme > case would mean that we inline all potential function calls? >
It's also nice for people reading code if common functions are functions from common libraries. This allows readers' "vocabulary" of common functions to increase, so they don't have to trawl through someone's personal "utility" library to figure out what each utility function does. Alex _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
