Alternative name for return

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
75 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Alternative name for return

J. Stutterheim
Dear Cafe,


Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)

N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.


- Jurriën
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Christian Sternagel
Dear Jurriën.

personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in
Haskell), since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The
literature sometimes uses "unit".)

cheers

chris

On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:

> Dear Cafe,
>
>
> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)
>
> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>
>
> - Jurriën
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
KC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

KC
I thought a pure value was being returned from the monad. :)


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Christian Sternagel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Jurriën.

personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell), since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes uses "unit".)

cheers

chris


On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
Dear Cafe,


Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)

N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.


- Jurriën
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



--
--
Regards,
KC

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Tarik ÖZKANLI
next, carry, feed, roll



On 6 August 2013 08:37, KC <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought a pure value was being returned from the monad. :)


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Christian Sternagel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Jurriën.

personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell), since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes uses "unit".)

cheers

chris


On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
Dear Cafe,


Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)

N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.


- Jurriën
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



--
--
Regards,
KC

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

J. Stutterheim
In reply to this post by Christian Sternagel
Thanks Chris. Yes, I like lift as well, because I find it a rather intuitive name. Unfortunately, as you say, it is already a commonly used name as well, which might make it slightly confusing.

When I hear `unit` I immediately think about generic programming, not so much about monads. Can you perhaps explain the intuition behind `unit` as an alternative to `return` in the context of monads?

- Jurriën

On 6 Aug 2013, at 07:32, Christian Sternagel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Jurriën.
>
> personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell), since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes uses "unit".)
>
> cheers
>
> chris
>
> On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
>> Dear Cafe,
>>
>>
>> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)
>>
>> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>>
>>
>> - Jurriën
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

signature.asc (506 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

J. Stutterheim
In reply to this post by Tarik ÖZKANLI
Hi Tarik,

Could you motivate the choice for these names? Thanks!

On 6 Aug 2013, at 08:14, Tarik ÖZKANLI <[hidden email]> wrote:

> next, carry, feed, roll
>
>
>
> On 6 August 2013 08:37, KC <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I thought a pure value was being returned from the monad. :)
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Christian Sternagel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear Jurriën.
>
> personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell), since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes uses "unit".)
>
> cheers
>
> chris
>
>
> On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> Dear Cafe,
>
>
> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)
>
> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>
>
> - Jurriën
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Regards,
> KC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

signature.asc (506 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Erik Hesselink
In reply to this post by J. Stutterheim
What about `pure`? It's already used in applicative, and has the
motivation that it's embedding a pure value in some context. Since I
don't know the details of your project, I don't know if you need two
names (one for the applicative version, and one for the monadic
version).

Erik

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:14 AM, J. Stutterheim <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Cafe,
>
>
> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)
>
> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>
>
> - Jurriën
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

J. Stutterheim
I have to admit that I am a bit torn about using `pure`. On the one hand, if you actually have a pure value, it feels pretty intuitive to me. But what about

  pure (putStrLn "Hi")

`putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value... Or is there another way to interpret the word pure in this context?

As for Applicative, I can add (and have added) the Applicative constraint in the Monad definition for my project, so I will also have to write an Applicative instance for my monads.


- Jurriën

On 6 Aug 2013, at 09:50, Erik Hesselink <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What about `pure`? It's already used in applicative, and has the
> motivation that it's embedding a pure value in some context. Since I
> don't know the details of your project, I don't know if you need two
> names (one for the applicative version, and one for the monadic
> version).
>
> Erik
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:14 AM, J. Stutterheim <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear Cafe,
>>
>>
>> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)
>>
>> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>>
>>
>> - Jurriën
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

signature.asc (506 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Karol Samborski
What about 'pack'?

Best,
Karol

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Colin Adams
What about 'inject'?


On 6 August 2013 09:09, Karol Samborski <[hidden email]> wrote:
What about 'pack'?

Best,
Karol

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Tom Ellis
In reply to this post by J. Stutterheim
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:03:04AM +0200, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value...

Why not?

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Tobias Dammers

It is a pure value in the context of the outer monad (the one you wrap it in). I'd say pure is still appropriate.

On Aug 6, 2013 10:14 AM, "Tom Ellis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:03:04AM +0200, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value...

Why not?

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Lyndon Maydwell
In reply to this post by Tom Ellis
What about "promote" ?


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Tom Ellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:03:04AM +0200, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value...

Why not?

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Christian Sternagel
In reply to this post by J. Stutterheim
On 08/06/2013 04:30 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> Thanks Chris. Yes, I like lift as well, because I find it a rather intuitive name. Unfortunately, as you say, it is already a commonly used name as well, which might make it slightly confusing.
>
> When I hear `unit` I immediately think about generic programming, not so much about monads. Can you perhaps explain the intuition behind `unit` as an alternative to `return` in the context of monads?
Probably because of the monad laws, where `return` is a "unit" (in the
mathematical sense) for the `bind` operation. - chris

>
> - Jurriën
>
> On 6 Aug 2013, at 07:32, Christian Sternagel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jurriën.
>>
>> personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell), since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes uses "unit".)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> chris
>>
>> On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
>>> Dear Cafe,
>>>
>>>
>>> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it? (for some definition of better)
>>>
>>> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Jurriën
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Jerzy Karczmarczuk
In reply to this post by Lyndon Maydwell
What about X, Y, Z, ...

We have seen this discussion already a long time ago. The terms "unit"
and "result" have been proposed. And others. Somebody (I forgot who)
advocated even the name "monad" in this context. And this might have
continued forever...

With all my respect, I see that Haskell reached finally the Noble Domain
of Philosophy. I mean, instead of discussing concepts, people begin to
discuss names.
And since for some, even IO () is a "pure" value, I suspect that the
next round will rekindle the discussion on the word "pure"...

Jerzy Karczmarczuk



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Adam Gundry
In reply to this post by J. Stutterheim
Hi,

On 06/08/13 06:14, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the
> `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it?
> (for some definition of better)

Rather than proposing a different name, I'm going to challenge the
premise of your question. Perhaps it would be better if `return` had no
name at all. Consider the following:

    return f `ap` s `ap` t

    f <$> s <*> t

    do { sv <- s
       ; tv <- t
       ; return (f sv tv) }

These are all different ways of spelling

    f s t

plus the necessary applicative or monadic bureaucracy. But why couldn't
we write just the plain application, and let the type system deal with
the plumbing of effects?

I realise that this may be too open a research area for your project...


> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of
> `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for
> common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering
> if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.

I don't think the choice of name matters. I do think it should be short.
Preferably invisible.

Adam

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

J. Stutterheim
Hi Adam,

Thank you for an interesting thought; an invisible name might actually be on of the better solutions, although you are right in that your suggestion is a bit too open for my current project.

Actually, I believe that naming is very important. My goal is to have the "average programmer" (i.e. someone without a post-bachelor degree) look at the code and get an intuitive feel of what is going on. So in reply to Jerzy, I do want to encourage the discussion in the "Noble Domain of Philosophy" and I also want to repeat that I am not proposing to change Haskell or Haskell libraries (I am working with another language altogether), so don't fear ;)


- Jurriën

On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:46, Adam Gundry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 06/08/13 06:14, J. Stutterheim wrote:
>> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the
>> `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better"  name for it?
>> (for some definition of better)
>
> Rather than proposing a different name, I'm going to challenge the
> premise of your question. Perhaps it would be better if `return` had no
> name at all. Consider the following:
>
>    return f `ap` s `ap` t
>
>    f <$> s <*> t
>
>    do { sv <- s
>       ; tv <- t
>       ; return (f sv tv) }
>
> These are all different ways of spelling
>
>    f s t
>
> plus the necessary applicative or monadic bureaucracy. But why couldn't
> we write just the plain application, and let the type system deal with
> the plumbing of effects?
>
> I realise that this may be too open a research area for your project...
>
>
>> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of
>> `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for
>> common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering
>> if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.
>
> I don't think the choice of name matters. I do think it should be short.
> Preferably invisible.
>
> Adam

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

signature.asc (506 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

J. Stutterheim
In reply to this post by Tobias Dammers
That argument makes sense, although I find it a bit counter-intuitive still. If I saw the function `pure` for the first time, my first impression (however wrong it may be) would be that it takes a pure value (regardless of context) and does something with it. Applying `pure` to an IO operation goes against that intuition.

Looking at the type of `return :: a -> m a", there are several slightly more intuitive (to me) options in this discussion already:

lift: the value `a` is lifted into the monad `m`
pack: the value `a` is packed into the monad `m`
wrap: the value `a` is wrapped in the monad `m`
inject: the value `a` is injected into the monad `m`
promote: the value `a` is promoted to a monad `m a`


On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:16, Tobias Dammers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It is a pure value in the context of the outer monad (the one you wrap it in). I'd say pure is still appropriate.
>
> On Aug 6, 2013 10:14 AM, "Tom Ellis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:03:04AM +0200, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> > `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value...
>
> Why not?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

signature.asc (506 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Jerzy Karczmarczuk
In reply to this post by J. Stutterheim
Le 06/08/2013 11:01, J. Stutterheim a écrit :
> ... So in reply to Jerzy, I do want to encourage the discussion in the "Noble Domain of Philosophy" and I also want to repeat that I am not proposing to change Haskell or Haskell libraries

Jurriën, I taught Haskell for several years. I saw the disgraceful confusion in heads of my students whose previous programming experience was based on Python, and who learned Haskell and Java in parallel. So, I won't claim that names are irrelevant. And "return" in particular.

However, my personal "philosophy" is the following: accept the fact that words in one language -- formal or natural -- mean something different than in another one. [[In French the word "file" in computerese is "queue" in English; this is in fact a French word meaning "tail" in English, and I have several dozens of such examples... And so what?...]]

It is good to choose consciously some good names while elaborating a standard. But getting back to it after several years, is -- for me -- a waste of time. This, unfortunately, pollutes the true philosophy as well. I believe that at least 80% of the "progress" in the philosophy of religions belongs to the linguistic domain.

The anglosaxons corupted the word "semantics", used in a pejorative sense: "discussion about superficialities, the words, not the concepts", while the true semantics is about the true sense.

So, sorry for being sarcastic, or even cynical in my previous post, but I sincerely think that oldies are oldies, let them be, and work more on issues that are still evolving.

All the best.

Jerzy



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Alternative name for return

Marc A. Ziegert
very insightful, thx Jerzy.

imho, this is a good reason not to use already known words like lift,return,inject,pure etc. while still using the word Monad. (this is something that bothered me for years.)
no one -of those who say "no one"- does understand Monads because it does not explain itself nor suggest its utility, while the other words probably tend to cause a very false sense of understanding.

so, long talk few suggestions....

if it should be about Monads as a concept, i'd suggest
1) "unit" and "counit" for Monads and Comonads. (this is my personal favorite choice, probably because i did learn to understand Monads by reading a paper about Comonads.)

if it should be more selfexplaining for the average coder, then
2) let,set,put,be,:= or "return allowed only at end of script - use let anywhere else" for ScriptLike (aka Monad)

as a strict version of return, i'd suggest something that may somehow fit into 1 and 2:
3) eval = Control.Exception.evaluate :: a -> IO a


regards
- marc




> Gesendet: Dienstag, 06. August 2013 um 11:43 Uhr
> Von: "Jerzy Karczmarczuk" <[hidden email]>
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Alternative name for return
>
> Le 06/08/2013 11:01, J. Stutterheim a écrit :
> > ... So in reply to Jerzy, I do want to encourage the discussion in the "Noble Domain of Philosophy" and I also want to repeat that I am not proposing to change Haskell or Haskell libraries
>
> Jurriën, I taught Haskell for several years. I saw the disgraceful confusion in heads of my students whose previous programming experience was based on Python, and who learned Haskell and Java in parallel. So, I won't claim that names are irrelevant. And "return" in particular.
>
> However, my personal "philosophy" is the following: accept the fact that words in one language -- formal or natural -- mean something different than in another one. [[In French the word "file" in computerese is "queue" in English; this is in fact a French word meaning "tail" in English, and I have several dozens of such examples... And so what?...]]
>
> It is good to choose consciously some good names while elaborating a standard. But getting back to it after several years, is -- for me -- a waste of time. This, unfortunately, pollutes the true philosophy as well. I believe that at least 80% of the "progress" in the philosophy of religions belongs to the linguistic domain.
>
> The anglosaxons corupted the word "semantics", used in a pejorative sense: "discussion about superficialities, the words, not the concepts", while the true semantics is about the true sense.
>
> So, sorry for being sarcastic, or even cynical in my previous post, but I sincerely think that oldies are oldies, let them be, and work more on issues that are still evolving.
>
> All the best.
>
> Jerzy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
1234