Names for small functions: just say no... Re: Data.List.join

[Jón Fairbairn]

"Samuel Bronson" <naesten at gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/30/06, Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Just so. But there are lots of languages where the stuff is
> > based on accidental choices of idioms by unknown bodies, and
> > I "[h]ates the lot of [th]em", so I don't want Haskell to go
> > that way.  I'm really uneasy at the idea that we should be
> > in favour of rapid changes to libraries; I'd much rather
> > they were developed after a good deal of argument about the
> > mathematical properties.
> 
> So, just because nobody has figured out what the
> "<weeble>" category is, you don't want it?

You need to read more carefully. I said "what would convince
me ..." I didn't say that the absence of a proof convinces
me otherwise. Everything /else/ I've been arguing convinces
me otherwise.

> That seems like a silly reason... next you will be asking
> what mathematical construct "Show" relates to!

Of course not. But I do care that Show has showsPrec and
that elements of the type ShowS has useful compositional
properties.  These things were thought about carefully.

-- 
Jón Fairbairn                                 Jon.Fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk