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

[Ralph Becket]

> From: Fergus Henderson [mailto:fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU]
> Sent: 14 July 2001 18:34
> To: mercury-reviews at cs.mu.OZ.AU
> Subject: Re: [m-rev.] Updated posix patch
> 
> On 14-Jul-2001, Michael Day <mikeday at corplink.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > :- module posix__exec.
> ...
> > exec(Command, Args, Env, Result) -->
> > 	exec0(Command,
> > 	    array(Args ++ [null]),
> > 	    array(map(variable, to_assoc_list(Env)) ++ [null])
> 
> Please s/map/list__map/
> and s/to_assoc_list/map__to_assoc_list/

There is a fine line between too much and too little verbiage
where readability is concerned.

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?

- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------