2011/5/25 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com>: > On 25 May 2011 22:17, Stephen Tetley <stephen.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Ivan >> >> Forks are good, no? >> >> The Parsec experience has suggested to me at least, that new author's >> "capping" another author's work by bumping up to a major version, >> causes a significant difficulties even when the original author has >> gone. >> >> As for wl-pprint, it was a very tidy library in its original >> implementation - it's a pity it now has name clashes with Applicative. >> My feeling is that a new library in a new namespace with some >> attention to new combinator names would be better. > > Such as? I'm _hopeless_ at making up names... ;-) > > Having a new package would require a new name and new module > namespace, let alone thinking up new names for combinators... > > Also, by clashes with Applicative, are you referring to empty and <$> > ? I'm not sure if a better name than "empty" can be found; as for > <$>, maybe using pretty's notation of $$ and $+$ rather than <$> and > <$$> ?
What about 'emptyDoc'? Moreover, if you are changing the names of combinators, then moving them away from Applicative and Arrow would be a good idea; i.e., don't use <+>, as it already used by ArrowPlus. Moreover, if you can make a Monoid instance such that `mappend` equals <>, you would also make the library compatible to a future introduction of (<>) = mappend. best regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
