> Furthermore, IMHO, type signatures alone are not enough, a good parameter > name says at least as much as the type.
Yes! A very good point! :) > > E.g. what does a function Int -> Int -> Bool do? I have no idea. A good > function name helps, e.g. isDivisible:: Int -> Int -> Bool. But then I still > don't know which parameter is the numerator and denominator. So good names > for the parameters are at least as important, e.g. isDivisible :: > numerator:Int -> denonimator:Int -> Bool > I agree. But I was generally thinking of more complex functions than this, especially if they use some kind of user-defined monad and have implicit parameters, say. Cheers, Chris. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
