On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:56 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I don't think a general "things to avoid" section should be advocating
> not naming things... in fact I would advocate the reverse. Name as many
> things as possible, at least until you have a good feel for how much
> point-freeness is go
[I drafted this response some time ago, but didn't send it, so apologies if
I am re-covering old ground...]
At 09:23 10/02/05 -0500, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
If you're trying to avoid obscurity, why advocate point-free style?
Some time ago, I asked an experienced Haskell programmer about the ext
On 10 February 2005 14:23, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
> If you're trying to avoid obscurity, why advocate point-free style?
>
> I ask this question to be deliberately provocative; I'm not trying to
> single you out in particular. So, to everybody: What's so great about
> point-free style?
I comp
I have to agree (although I suspect few others will :))
matt
On 11/02/2005, at 1:23 AM, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On Feb 10, 2005, at 6:50 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Jäger wrote:
Altogether, the spirit of the page seems to be "use as little
syntactic suga
On Feb 10, 2005, at 6:50 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Jäger wrote:
Altogether, the spirit of the page seems to be "use as little
syntactic sugar as possible" which maybe appropriate if it is aimed at
newbies, who often overuse syntactic sugar (do-notation).
