Elsewhere (but I can't quite find it...) @gallais has invoked a style heuristic (policy?) whereby function symbols, when 'quoted' as 'syntax', namely as constructors of eg. Expr datatypes making syntax out of algebraic expressios (cf. Algebra.Solver.*, Tactic.*Solver etc.), should have a prefixing backtick to 'turn the function name into a constructor name'...
... whereas Data.List.Base. _∷ʳ′_ makes it a suffixing annotation, and making the name, already with superscript ʳ an absolute horrorshow...
Accordingly, we should:
- change the name in
Data.List.Base
- make a
style-guide policy decision
- find, and 'standardise', any other such idioms in the library
UPDATED: hmm, looking again at eg Tactic.RingSolver, I'm not sure that I have got the idiom/convention quite right. Advice welcome!
Elsewhere (but I can't quite find it...) @gallais has invoked a
styleheuristic (policy?) whereby function symbols, when 'quoted' as 'syntax', namely as constructors of eg.Exprdatatypes making syntax out of algebraic expressios (cf.Algebra.Solver.*,Tactic.*Solveretc.), should have a prefixing backtick to 'turn the function name into a constructor name'...... whereas
Data.List.Base. _∷ʳ′_makes it a suffixing annotation, and making the name, already with superscriptʳan absolute horrorshow...Accordingly, we should:
Data.List.Basestyle-guidepolicy decisionUPDATED: hmm, looking again at eg
Tactic.RingSolver, I'm not sure that I have got the idiom/convention quite right. Advice welcome!