jaror, 5 months ago

@Profpatsch compare `on` length to me seems much nicer than \x y -> compare (length x) (length y)

Profpatsch, 5 months ago

@jaror I disagree. The function does not carry it's complexity budget, similar to curry/uncurry

jaror, 5 months ago

Would you also say that syntactic sugar like [1,2,3] doesn't carry its complexity budget? Should we always use 1:2:3:[] instead?

I don't necessarily disagree, but you'd get quite a different language.

Profpatsch, 5 months ago

@jaror No, I specifically say "on" does not carry its complexity budget. Is the first tweet so hard to understand

Profpatsch, 5 months ago

@jaror maybe the idea behind a complexity budget is not well known in programming, I would not be surprised

jaror, 5 months ago

@Profpatsch Are you implying syntactic sugar doesn't count towards the complexity budget? I'm just trying to test my understanding of the complexity budget by applying it to other things in the language.

BoydStephenSmithJr, 4 months ago

@Profpatsch I think maybe the name is a bit terse and ambiguous, but I appreciate the combinator being available. Homogeneous binary functions are fairly common (lots of operators) and precomposing a projection on both arguments is not uncommon when dealing with nested record structure. But, if pointed style is preferred or encouraged, I do think its utility is minimal.

kosmikus, 5 months ago

@Profpatsch Hmm, I quite like it.