3 ms·
> Many times, between the name of the function and type of arguments, one can figure out exactly what they need to pass in to achieve the desired output. Yes o
by LeonidasXIV 11y ago
> Many times, between the name of the function and type of arguments, one can figure out exactly what they need to pass in to achieve the desired output.
Yes of course because the parameters are usually designed with currying in mind, so the order is from most general on the left to the most specific on the right. In the case of elem, both orders are reasonable, but often times only one makes sense and then it is easy to remember.
- tome 11y agoYou seem to have missed kornish's point completely.
- kornish 11y agoI'm not quite sure how you're defining "general" and "specific", but I think I don't disagree with what you're saying. The point of my comment was more that one of the beauties of Haskell is that positional arguments are made so elegant because every positional argument is accompanied by a type. I wasn't making a statement about the order of parameters themselves, but how all parameters are typed. > In the case of elem, both orders are reasonable, but often times only one makes sense and then it is easy to remember. In some languages where callbacks taking positional arguments are idiomatic (like Javascript), untyped functions can cause a lot of problems by making it really hard to discern/remember what gets passed in where. In Haskell, there's often very little onus on the developer to remember anything at all; the type system will make sure they got the order right. Obvious exceptions are non-associative functions of the type a -> a -> a Then, one might have to check to see what goes in first and what goes in second.