binary files in haskell
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:57:41 -0800
This is exactly what I proposed when fmap and the other weird names were
introduced. Hopefully there are more allies now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Koen Claessen" <email@example.com>
To: "The Haskell Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: binary files in haskell
> Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> | Should this also apply to names in the standard
> | library? like Monad (filterM, zipWithM ,..) I mean,
> | theoretically yes, but is it feasible to change it?
> Obviously, these functions should have been called:
> Monad.filter, Monad.zipWith
> The lazy programmer can then say:
> import Monad as M (*)
> M.filter, M.zipWith
> Just (asymptotically) 1 character more! :-)
> | getLine -> hGetLine always irritates me.
> How about:
> import Handle as H
> (This is a good example where type classes would not help
> making this any better, since the types of getLine and
> H.getLine are very different.)
> While we're at it, how about instead of the "fmap" function:
> Functor.map (F.map)
> List.map (L.map)
> Maybe.map (M.map)
> The programmer can pick him/herself what function to use.
> (The Prelude really has too many functions in it, and very
> often the rationale for a function being in Prelude or in
> Char/List/Maybe/Monad/IO/etc. is not motivated.)
> What do people think about this? If people prefer these
> stylistic changes, I think we should not hesitate making
> them for Haskell/2 by completely redesigning the module
> structure and using more consistent naming conventions.
> (*) What actually happened to the excellent proposal
> somebody made a while ago for Haskell98:
> import M = Monad
> ? I like it a lot!
> Koen Claessen http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~koen
> phone:+46-31-772 5424 mailto:email@example.com
> Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
> Haskell mailing list