Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or
"###"?Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
Daryoush
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-caf
On Jul 17, 2009, at 15:06 , Daryoush Mehrtash wrote:
Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like
"<@<" or "###"?Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
Because symbols can be used as infix functions directly, whereas
alphanumerics have to be wrapped i
dmehrtash:
> Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or
> "#
> ##"?Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
Where are those functions defined??
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http:
System.Console.Curses? Sorry couldn't resist ...
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Don Stewart wrote:
> dmehrtash:
>> Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<" or
>> "#
>> ##"? Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
>
> Where are those functions def
Am Freitag, 17. Juli 2009 21:06 schrieb Daryoush Mehrtash:
> Why do Haskell programmers (and libraries) name their function like "<@<"
> or "###"?Why not use a more descriptive label for functions?
It’s for the same reason that mathematicians say 2 + 3 instead of plus(2,3):
it’s more readable
