On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 20:55 +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote: > On 2006-08-14 at 12:00PDT "Iavor Diatchki" wrote: > > Hello, > > I never liked the decision to rename 'map' to 'fmap', because it > > introduces two different names for the same thing (and I find the name > > `fmap' awkward). > > I strongly concur. There are far too many maps even without > that, and having two names for the same thing adds to the > confusion.
If it goes in that direction it'd be nice to consider the issue of structures which cannot support a polymorphic map. Of course such specialised containers (eg unboxed arrays or strings) are not functors but they are still useful containers with a sensible notion of map. The proposals to allow this involve MPTCs where the element type is a parameter. That allows instances which are polymorphic in the element type or instances which constrain it. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
