[m-dev.] Re: [mercury-users] Module qualification of common operators (was RE: [m-rev.] Updated posix patch)

[David Overton]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:20:44PM +1000, Peter Schachte wrote:
> > I'm starting to think that for very common operators such as
> > map, fold, filter, append etc. readability might improve by
> > omitting module qualifiers.  Some unqualified overloading is
> > already commonplace, ++/2 and elem/1 for instance.
> > 
> > How do other people feel about the issue?
> 
> I agree.  I find the module prefix often makes the code harder to read.  I
> often find the intended meaning is is more quickly seen without the extra
> text.  

I agree too.

-- 
David Overton      Department of Computer Science & Software Engineering
PhD Student        The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
+61 3 8344 9159    http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~dmo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------