George, Thanks very much for this. I like your suggestion, which fits the logical structure perfectly; and you've suggested a neat way around the ugliness of 'group groupBy'. I also note that if we aren't so worried about not introducing new keywords, that 'then group' could become 'group'. Yours, -- P
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:21 PM, George Giorgidze <giorgi...@gmail.com> wrote: > A quick thought that came to me after hoogling [a] -> [[a]]. > The first four functions in the search result are named after what they > return (noun in plural) rather than what they do (verb). I am talking about > inits, permutations, subsequence and tails. > So I thought the following syntax might work as well if (as it is already > common) grouping functions are named after what they return. > then f > then f by e > then group f > then group f by e > For example the following code fragments read well: > then group inits > then group permutations > then group subsequences > then group tails > Here we use the special identifier group as a verb. > I have not told you about the fifth result of the hoogling, the groupWith > function. The following really looks ugly: > then group groupWith by e > But following the aforementioned naming convention the groupWith function > could as well be named as equals. Now this reads well: > then group equals by e > Cheers, George -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
