On 2008 Sep 21, at 15:10, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Andrew Coppin wrote:
- Several standard library functions have names which clash badly
with the
usual meanings of those names - e.g., "break", "return", "id".
For this one, I'm inclined to say "welcome to a new paradigm".
Though having to tell my dad briefly that do isn't a loop construct
was odd for a moment.
I think "return" is a rather bad choice of name. But on the other
hand, I can't think of a better one. And let's face it, anything has
to be better than (>>=). (Most cryptic name ever?)
Applicative and Arrow have the replacement for "return" right: "pure".
No argumnt about (>>=), but on the other hand I remember (>>=) but
never remember the arrow or Applicative operators.
Idiomatic Haskell seems to consist *only* of single-letter variable
names. When did you last see a pattern like (customer:customers)?
No, it'd be (c:cs), which isn't very self-
I tend to use something like cust:custs; I prefer to be able to read
it. If the code is generic then I'll use generic names --- which
alerts me to its genericness.
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
