3 ms·
Conventions are as important as syntax when it comes to legibility of a language, so phrasing “M” as “Action” seemed a fair comparison. And if you want to be tr
by evincarofautumn 11y ago
Conventions are as important as syntax when it comes to legibility of a language, so phrasing “M” as “Action” seemed a fair comparison. And if you want to be true to the semantics, you might write something like this:
def M2 ((A1 => A2 => R) => M<A1> => M<A2> => M<R>) where Monad<M>
At which point the Haskell syntax is shorter. However, concision is not the goal—it’s merely a proxy for clarity.
- masklinn 11y ago> Conventions are as important as syntax when it comes to legibility of a language, so phrasing “M” as “Action” seemed a fair comparison. But the conventions are whatever we want for a resyntacting no? > However, concision is not the goal I was answering a comment putting concision forward as reasons to dislike the alternate syntax.