"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
>
> Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
> > I take it that you are happy with names such as:
> >
> [long list of names deleted]
> >
> > I *hate* languages that try to keep things too simple. Which is one of
> > the reasons I *hate* java. Please don't make me *hate* Haskell for the
> > same reason.
>
> The problem with excessive overloading is that
The key word here is excessive. If you are confusing your self by
using the same name for everthing than you need to use seperate function
names. So you are saying that haskell should avoid all featurs that can
be abused.
>
> (1) it is often cute in small programs, but bites you when
> software gets more complex, and
I have never yet hade this problem with my C++ functions and
overloading. I only use overloading when it will be clear my the
context what it means.
> (2) it makes it harder for beginners.
>
> Re (1): Consider the usage of different function names as a
> form of additional documentation.
Yes but many times excessively long function names can make code harder
to read.
>
> Re (2): There was some overloading in Haskell 1.4, which was
> taken out in Haskell 98 exactly for this reason (usage of
> list comprehensions for other monads than list and the
> overloading of map and (++)).
That is a shame.
--
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
