On 23-Dec-2003, Sean L. Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that Haskell would be quite a bit easier for OO and
> traditional programmers to grasp if Haskell would actually use the
> correct, or at least more commonly used, names for things.
> For instance,
>
> data Maybe a = Not
That was quite a satisfying explanation, thank you. That is certainly
clearing a few things up.
Sean
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: Haskell naming conventions
> G'day all.
G'day all.
Quoting Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> According to dictionary.com one of the definitions of the word class is:
>
>A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded
>as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.
>
> And wh
Sean L. Palmer wrote:
class Eq a where
(==) :: a -> a -> Bool
That actually declares a /type class/, not a class. So why the use of
the keyword class? Is it done merely to confuse C++ and Java
programmers? The concept of type class in Haskell apparently roughly
corresponds to the c
On Dec 24, 2003, at 2:29 AM, Sean L. Palmer wrote:
It occurs to me that Haskell would be quite a bit easier for OO and
traditional programmers to grasp if Haskell would actually use the
correct, or at least more commonly used, names for things.
I don't think changing a few keywords will have any
to all: excuse my bad english.
to javas: excuse my extreme opinions. - regard me as s.o. of an other... religion.
to newbies: read it.
to haskellers: you don't need to.
johi, Sean.
i remember that i've had the same problems with haskell, at the beginning.
you are right, that there should be a spe
It occurs to me that Haskell would be quite a bit
easier for OO and traditional programmers to grasp if Haskell would actually use
the correct, or at least more commonly used, names for things.
For instance,
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just
a
Maybe is a type
constructor and Nothing and Jus
