On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Schilling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 July 2011 08:22, Paul R <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Café, >> >> Thomas> I think (<>) is fairly uncontroversial because: >> Thomas> (...) >> Thomas> 2. It's abstract. i.e., no intended pronunciation >> >> How can that be an advantage ? A text flow with unnamed (or >> unpronounceable) symbols makes reading, understanding and remembering >> harder, don't you think ? I really think any operator or symbol should >> be intended (and even designed !) for pronunciation. >> >> Some references state that the monoid binary operation is often named >> "dot" or "times" in english. That does not mean the operator must be >> `dot`, `times`, (<.>) or (<x>) but at least the doc should provide >> a single, consistent and pronounceable name for it, whatever its >> spelling. > > Well, in this case I think it can be beneficial because the > pronunciation depends on the underlying monoid. E.g., sometimes it > would be "append" or "plus", other times "dot" or "times". It can, of > course, be useful to also have a good name for the generic operator. > In this case I'd call it "diamond".
After a big, backwards-incompatible library overhaul it would be nice if it ended up being (++) or (+). > > -- > Push the envelope. Watch it bend. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > -- Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
