maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol)
Shiro Kawai
(04 Jun 2020 04:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol)
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(04 Jun 2020 07:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol)
Shiro Kawai
(04 Jun 2020 08:20 UTC)
|
||
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol)
John Cowan
(04 Jun 2020 19:43 UTC)
|
||
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol)
Lassi Kortela
(05 Jun 2020 15:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol)
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(05 Jun 2020 17:36 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol) Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (05 Jun 2020 17:58 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-map etc. (sequence protocol) Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 05 Jun 2020 17:58 UTC
On 2020-06-05 13:40 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > I think the term was developed independently of "applicative-functor". I > really don't want a bunch of Scheme procedure names with > "applicative-functor" in them, though I admit "idiom" may be easily > confused with its wider sense of "idiosyncratic way of expressing something > in a particular language". Agreed, "idiom" is preferable to "applicative functor", which is too verbose. And Haskell's "Applicative" is deplorably ambiguous. CC'd to the ml, since John replied off-list. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "[T]he purpose of abstracting is _not_ to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise." --Edsger W. Dijkstra