I like to take a leaf out of Prince's book and refer to it as "the function formerly known as mappend"
August Sodora [email protected] (201) 280-8138 On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:22 AM, 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. > > Thomas> For this reason, I think a larger change would have to come with > Thomas> a larger library re-organization. Johan Tibell suggested > Thomas> something like that a while ago: instead of lots of little cuts > Thomas> (backwards incompatible changes), a working group of activists > Thomas> should redesign a whole new (incompatible) alternative set of > Thomas> core libraries. > > This would be a great initiative, really ! > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
