Re: [Haskell-cafe] Names for pretty-printing combinators
Casey McCann schrieb: > One drastic approach I've used in personal libraries--operator-heavy > EDSLs specifically--is to define everything first with alphanumeric > names, then put operators in their own modules. In some cases I'd have > three such modules: One providing a minimal set of operators that don't > clash with anything significant, one providing a larger set of operators > that clash with one or more common modules (often deliberately, e.g. > duplicating Arrow combinators for some type with similar semantics but > no valid Arrow instance), and one providing a bunch of gratuitous > Unicode operators that look pretty in my code editor but I don't know > how to type in GHCi. I use explicit imports in order to avoid infix operator clashes. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Names for pretty-printing combinators
One drastic approach I've used in personal libraries--operator-heavy EDSLs specifically--is to define everything first with alphanumeric names, then put operators in their own modules. In some cases I'd have three such modules: One providing a minimal set of operators that don't clash with anything significant, one providing a larger set of operators that clash with one or more common modules (often deliberately, e.g. duplicating Arrow combinators for some type with similar semantics but no valid Arrow instance), and one providing a bunch of gratuitous Unicode operators that look pretty in my code editor but I don't know how to type in GHCi. I'm not sure if I've seen that approach anywhere else, however, so it might not be something most people would care for. - C. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote: > Hi Ivan > > empty is fine as is, obviously with a Monoid instance as well, people > can choose to use mempty which removes potential name clashes. > > I was thinking of (<$>) and (<+>), though I was forgetting that (<+>) > is actually ArrowPlus. > > If you are mostly gifting angles as notation to Applicative, maybe a > pretty print library can live with fewer infix ops? Though you could > still define fixities for the binary cases: > > infixr 6 `sep1` > > Or maybe steal the notation form Vector-Space (^+^) as cases where you > would want both imported at the same time may be uncommon. > > Although "trivial" proposals often get rejected for changes to Base, I > suspect a proposal for (<>) as a synonym for `mappend` might have > legs, it would certainly have a lot of support... > > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Names for pretty-printing combinators
Hi Ivan empty is fine as is, obviously with a Monoid instance as well, people can choose to use mempty which removes potential name clashes. I was thinking of (<$>) and (<+>), though I was forgetting that (<+>) is actually ArrowPlus. If you are mostly gifting angles as notation to Applicative, maybe a pretty print library can live with fewer infix ops? Though you could still define fixities for the binary cases: infixr 6 `sep1` Or maybe steal the notation form Vector-Space (^+^) as cases where you would want both imported at the same time may be uncommon. Although "trivial" proposals often get rejected for changes to Base, I suspect a proposal for (<>) as a synonym for `mappend` might have legs, it would certainly have a lot of support... ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Names for pretty-printing combinators
(Changing the subject as it's going off-topic from the original email :p) On 25 May 2011 22:45, Simon Meier wrote: > 2011/5/25 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic : >> >> Also, by clashes with Applicative, are you referring to empty and <$> >> ? I'm not sure if a better name than "empty" can be found; as for >> <$>, maybe using pretty's notation of $$ and $+$ rather than <$> and >> <$$> ? > > What about 'emptyDoc'? It's a bit more of a mouthful, and getting a bit close to Hungarian Notation, isn't it? :p Also, empty is already used a fair amount in other libraries as it stands (admittedly, most of those are in modules that are typically imported qualified...). > Moreover, if you are changing the names of > combinators, then moving them away from Applicative and Arrow would be > a good idea; i.e., don't use <+>, as it already used by ArrowPlus. *sigh* We really need to get a list of used operators somewhere so that libraries can stake a claim :p > Moreover, if you can make a Monoid instance such that `mappend` equals > <>, you would also make the library compatible to a future > introduction of (<>) = mappend. I was thinking about that actually... -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
