Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
Although I appluad the semantics of the safe package, I'm not delighted
with the idea of replacing our concise elegant standard library names
with uglyAndRatherLongCamelCaseNamesThatCouldBePerlOrEvenJava though.
Conciseness of expression is a virtue.
They aren't that long - merely an extra 4 characters over the standard
one to indicate what the specific semantics are. If you can think of
better names, then I'm happy to make use of them.
No, they're not, and it wasn't intended as a slight against your naming
choice. I don't have a better suggestion.
The problem I was really trying to point at, but didn't express at all
well, was that a proliferation of similar functions with slightly
different names (like Conor's four versions of zipWith) doesn't make a
very elegant library API. It's nicer to settle on a smaller number of
primitives. I don't actually have a solution that I think is "good" for
the head/tail/take/drop issue :-(
Jules
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
