On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:41 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, John Goerzen wrote: > > > One thing that does annoy me about Haskell- naming. Say you've > > noticed a common pattern, a lot of data structures are similar to > > the difference list I described above, in that they have an empty > > state and the ability to append things onto the end. Now, for > > various reasons, you want to give this pattern a name using on > > Haskell's tools for expressing common idioms as general patterns > > (type classes, in this case). What name do you give it? I'd be > > inclined to call it something like "Appendable". But no, Haskell > > calls this pattern a "Monoid". > > I risk to repeat someones point, since I have not read the entire thread > ... What I don't like about the Monoid class is, that its members are > named "mempty" and "mappend". It may be either (also respecting > qualified import) > Monoid(identity, op)
+1 If we're going to change any names in the standard library at all, this is the change we should make. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
