On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote: > Chaddaï Fouché wrote: >> There is already many thing in standard library. The balance is important. > > I agree. > > The question is whether we mind lots of people reimplementing this > themselves, each using their own different name for it. I believe I read > about some plan to add a trivial function named "on" to one of the standard > libraries, because having it there makes code more readable. So the > question becomes "does putting this thing in the library make people's code > clearer, or is the function trivial enough to reimplement that one can > readily see what it's for?" > > I'd prefer it in the library (probably Data.List), but it's no biggie.
Interestingly, the function is already there; it's called genericLength. However, the lazy natural type isn't. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
