Re: type (++) = (<>)

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.

Re: type (++) = (<>)

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

Re: type (++) = (<>)

Do you really mean at the type level? On 3 Jul 2017 12:11 pm, "Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev" wrote: > Hello! > > 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

type (++) = (<>)

Hello! 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. Best regards, Vassil Keremidchiev ___ Haskell-prime mailing list