On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Erik Meijer wrote:
Personally I find the convention of using `a', `b', and `c' for type
variables to be a poor one. I much prefer using `t' (if there's
only one) or `t1', `t2', ... (if there's more than one).
I find that for me this makes it much easier to
Jonathan King wrote:
transformListElems :: (elem - elem') - List elem - List elem'
transformListElems transform Nil = Nil
transformListElems transform (Cons elem elemRest) =
Cons (transform elem) (transformListElems transform elemRest)
Well, the second version does more than
Jonathan King writes:
So, the name of a type is always at least a full word, as are the names of
specific functions. But type variables are almost always single
characters, and distinct from the names of any type. Conventionally, they
are also usually "a", "b", and "c", although "m" is for
Jan Skibinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there are some stylistic camps, such as Eiffel's, that
prefer names with underscores rather than Hungarian notation
- claiming exactly the same reason: better readability. :-)
I don't see that underscores serve readability in the same way as
So, the name of a type is always at least a full word, as are the names of
specific functions. But type variables are almost always single
characters, and distinct from the names of any type. Conventionally, they
are also usually "a", "b", and "c", although "m" is for monad.
Conventionally
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Craig Dickson wrote:
I don't see that underscores serve readability in the same way as Hungarian
notation purports to (unless the Eiffel people claim that underscores
somehow convey type information?), so I don't see a conflict here. One could
easily use both, e.g.
I think this kind of thing is valuable... Hungarian notation [1]
serves the same purpose in Windows C / C++ programming. It *is*
valuable having canonical variable names for most situations; it reduces
the
intellectual load on the (human) reader of the code... you don't have to
check
