On 11/18/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying it's impossible to make good use of (.), I'm saying
that it's not crucial enough to warrant giving it the dot, which in my
opinion is one of the best symbols (and I'd hand it over to record
selection any day of the week!).
I'm also saying that people tend to abuse the (.) operator when they
start out because they think that less verbose == better, whereas
most people, in my experience, tend to stop using (.) for all but the
simplest cases (such as filte (not . null)) after a while to promote
readability. I prefer adding a few lines with named sub-expressions to
make things clearer.
In case someone counts votes pro et contra of replacing (.) operator,
I must say that find it one of the most useful and readable way for
doing many different things (not only higher-order). And very compact
too.
And in my code it is very common operator.
While if somebody, who at this moment counts my vote, will remove
records from the language some day, I very likely wouldn't notice such
a loss.
And I can't say I'm very experienced haskell programmer. Actually I'm
a beginner comparing my experience with other, particularly imperative
OOP languages.
And records with (.) as field selector (coupled with dumb
constructors) will be the last thing i would miss in haskell.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
