Note: I realize nobody is directly saying that we should use (++) instead
of (<>) in this conversation just yet, but I want to clear a few things up.
One of the early options when the operator (<>) was coined was to try to
say we should just generalize the type of (++) instead to make it mappend.
(Note: it originally was mplus, in a Haskell version long long ago, so it
keeps getting repurposed!) Unfortunately, this plan ran afoul of the fact
that the primary libraries using the (<>) notation at the time (pretty
printing libraries) also mixed it heavily with (++), exploiting the
different fixities involved. (Finding a decent fixity for (<>) was a huge
chunk of the conversation at the time.)
There is a deliberate fixity difference between (++) and (<>), a good chunk
of code out there mixes them that deals with pretty printing that would
break pretty horribly if we just outright removed (++), and trying to do a
visual search and replace for (++) with (<>) in light of them having
different fixities is a very error prone process, so we aren't currently
planning on deprecating the existing (++) operator any time soon. At least,
nobody has put a proposal to the core libraries committee to that end.
Since the call was made to make (<>) become the new operator, we ultimately
decided to leave (++) untouched, even though it could be generalized to
match (<>), for much the same reason that map still exists, despite there
being a more general fmap: Ultimately, there isn't a reasonable migration
plan to make (++) or map become the way you define the instance involved,
and at least this way the name duplication can be leveraged by the folks
who want a less polymorphic combinator.
Would the world be a little tidier without map or (++) hanging about? Sure.
But the hate mail levels in my inbox would skyrocket commensurately. ;)
-Edward
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote:
>
> > What do you think of making (++) the same as (<>) so we could use ++ as
> > concatenation of any monoid, not just lists in Haskell 2020?
> > This will be more intuitive for beginners, too.
>
> Two symbolic operators that are synonymous seems a bit of a waste. I would
> much rather see (++) be deprecated in favour of (<>). At work we have a
> custom prelude which already does this.
>
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
