At Fri, 06 May 2011 21:27:21 -0400, Mario Blažević wrote: > > > I'd been thinking about using the terms Source and Sink, but Source is > > very overloaded, and "SinkSource" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue > > or evoke a particularly helpful intuition. > > The SCC package happens to use Source and Sink names as well. They > are used not for coroutines directly, but instead for references to > coroutines of the appropriate type. Every consumer thus owns a Source > from which it fetches its input, and that Source is always bound to > another coroutine that yields those values through a Sink. Source and > Sink are a passive handle to a Producer and Consumer. I may be > subjective, but I find this use of the terms very fitting.
You mean fitting for references to coroutines, or fitting for the replacement names for Enumerator/Iteratee? If there's overwhelming consensus, I would certainly consider changing the names in the iterIO library, but it's a pretty big change... David _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe