On 28/01/2012 13:00, Paul R wrote:
...
> All this dot syntax magic frankly frightens me. Haskell, as a pure
> functionnal language, requires (and allows !) a programming style that
> just does not mix well with object oriented practices. Stretching the
> syntax to have the dot feel a-bit-but-not-really like object oriented
> programming, mainly to have IDE autocompletion on some cases, does not
> make much sens.
In the glasgow-haskell-users discussion, it has been pointed out (to
little apparent effect) that the current notation for access by field
name, `field record', is naturally functional and is easier to read
for a functionally trained eye than a postfix `record.field' alternative.
It isn't so much of an issue for OO programmers because the languages
are also procedural and the expressions tend to be simpler. In a
language like Haskell, an expression could switch back and forth several
times between pre-fix (functional) and post-fix (dot) notation. Like,
`yolk (separate (crack (largeEnd egg)))' becomes
`(separate (crack (egg.smallEnd))).yolk'
That elementary example doesn't give me much trouble, but it sure
doesn't seem to be much of an improvement in notational elegance.
See how natural the transformation with function composition -
yolk (separate (crack (largeEnd egg)))
yolk ((separate . crack . largeEnd) egg)
yolk (f egg) where f = separate . crack . largeEnd
... compared to the re-shuffing necessary with post-fix dot notation
(assuming for the sake of discussion a functional dot notation
.field = \ r -> r.field)
(separate (crack (egg.smallEnd))).yolk
((separate . crack . .smallEnd) egg).yolk
(f egg).yolk where f = separate . crack . .smallEnd
Donn
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
