2 ms·
I think the problem might be also things that look like syntax to somebody who is not used to Haskell, but are just usual functions like ($) (<*>) ($!) and what
by IsTom 13y ago
I think the problem might be also things that look like syntax to somebody who is not used to Haskell, but are just usual functions like ($) (<*>) ($!) and whatnot.
- Peaker 13y agoI really wish Haskell syntax was extended to allow special forms ("case", "do", etc) to be ordinary function arguments and not just infix function arguments. This would remove a significant portion of the $ signs in Haskell programs, as so many of them are just padding for "do", "case", etc.
- cschneid 13y agoI agree. There are a fair number of symbols out there. And really, how do you pronounce: ">>=", "<<=", "<*>", ".", and such. I know them now, but discoverability is pretty low on those functions.
- bazzargh 13y agoAnd Control.Lens introduces around 20 more symbols like this. It does at times feel like reading perl without 'use English;'