Invisible escreveu:
>>> What, defining three pages of code is longer than the 1-liner I posted?
>>>
>>> The ($) operator is defined in the Haskell language standard. :-P
>>
>> The o operator is defined in my personal standard and I never look 
>> back. ;)
> 
> OK, but ($) is still a 1-liner:
> 
>   f $ x = f x
> 
> And, unlike your notation, it doesn't require any brackets at all! ;-)

Why would my o operator not be a one-liner?  Unless you think the 
implementation of $ doesn't count.  It's just as abstracted away as the 
implementation of o.

I don't have a problem with brackets or parenthesis.  Besides, Haskell 
needs it too to solve ambiguities in all but the most simpler expressions.

And multiple $ for each call is as bad as multiple parenthesis, I guess.

> BTW, what would you say the most irritating library design flaw in 
> Scheme is?

None.  It's perfect. ;)

Ok, to be fair, I didn't like the latest standard very much... And given 
Scheme is very minimalist, I'm used to writing my own libs, so any 
design flaws are really mine. ;)

> In Haskell, my personal one is this:
> 
>   filter odd [1, 2, 3, 4]
> 
> That takes a list and filters out the odd numbers, right?
> 
> WRONG!
> 
> It filters out the *even* numbers.
> 
> Like, WTF?
> 
> Obviously what they *should* have done is name it "select". Then you 
> would write
> 
>   select odd [1, 2, 3, 4]

Hmm, that's just different terminology for the same things.  Yes, I too 
would expect filter odd to return the odds, but it certainly can be seen 
working the other way around.  I believe, though, that 2 functions doing 
pretty much the same thing is wrong and bad design.  select is really 
only used in SQL.  filter is a pretty common functional language idiom...

Post a reply to this message