How do you pronounce these operators?

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

How do you pronounce these operators?

John M. Dlugosz
I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many of the operators,
such as <*>.  I know that >>= is pronounced ?bind?, but what about the others?  Is there
some common consensus, a list somewhere, or at least the proper mathematical names to
serve as a starting point?

I'd hate to have to make something up (see <
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercal-man/tonsila.html >)

?John


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

Kim-Ee Yeoh
Administrator
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com>wrote:

> I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many of
> the operators, such as <*>.  I know that >>= is pronounced "bind", but what
> about the others?  Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere, or at
> least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point?


Did you try a search? There are links out there.

But it's true that a search will only get you so far. I think what we don't
have enough is idiomatic English coupled to idiomatic Haskell.

It's like a proof/program of a proposition in Euclidean geometry. One just
gets it visually and doesn't really bother with verbalizing on the tongue.

Provide a code fragment here, and folks will help you with it.

-- Kim-Ee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140403/46c08272/attachment-0001.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

Thiago Negri
As far as I know, there are no standard out there for this.
As Haskell allows to define custom operators, they tend to add up pretty
quick and it's completely optional to give it a pronounceable name.
Maybe we can propose a syntax to define a pronounceable name next to an
operator, and make emacs say it out loud each time you type it (missed
april's fool release notes).

As Kim-Ee said, a quick search can bring good content into the matter:

HaskellWiki has a page about this:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Pronunciation
The HaskellWiki points to a thread:
www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-January/038756.html
And there's a question at Stackoverflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7746894/are-there-pronounceable-names-for-common-haskell-operators

Hope it can help.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140403/4b86a48e/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

David Thomas
In reply to this post by John M. Dlugosz
For things that have a textual equivalent, I tend to use that (possibly
"infix X" or "X operator" if it's not clear from context) even if the
equivalent is more or less specialized than the operator.  For <*> in
particular, that is "ap".
On Apr 3, 2014 6:29 AM, "John M. Dlugosz" <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:

> I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many of
> the operators, such as <*>.  I know that >>= is pronounced "bind", but what
> about the others?  Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere, or at
> least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point?
>
> I'd hate to have to make something up (see < http://www.muppetlabs.com/~
> breadbox/intercal-man/tonsila.html >)
>
> --John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140403/fe2ed97e/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

Tony Morris-4
In reply to this post by Kim-Ee Yeoh
On 04/04/14 03:28, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:

>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz
> <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com <mailto:ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for
>     many of the operators, such as <*>.  I know that >>= is pronounced
>     "bind", but what about the others?  Is there some common
>     consensus, a list somewhere, or at least the proper mathematical
>     names to serve as a starting point?
>
>
> Did you try a search? There are links out there.
>
> But it's true that a search will only get you so far. I think what we
> don't have enough is idiomatic English coupled to idiomatic Haskell.
>
> It's like a proof/program of a proposition in Euclidean geometry. One
> just gets it visually and doesn't really bother with verbalizing on
> the tongue.
>
> Provide a code fragment here, and folks will help you with it.
>
> -- Kim-Ee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
I have heard the following for (<*>)

* angle butt
* spaceship
* apply
* ap
* angry eye


--
Tony Morris
http://tmorris.net/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140404/07c238c0/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

Joel Neely
As somewhat of an outsider (background in Math, working in the software
field), I find this topic a fascinating illustration of differences in
optimization.

Math (inclusive of statistics and theoretical physics) and computing
(inclusive of IT and applications programming) seem to be two of the fields
that have the greatest need for constant definition of new terms,
frequently on-the-fly in support of a larger goal. (I'm excluding the
legal, political, and marketing fields, for reasons best explained by Edwin
Newman in _Strictly_Speaking_.)

The mathematical approach optimizes for economy of writing/presentation,
favoring single-letter, context-sensitive variable names and a
typographer's paradise of symbols and alphabetic variations. Anecdotes
abound of the specialist who finds papers from a different specialty to be
cryptic.

Computing, especially of the commercial variety, tends to optimize for
recognition/hinting for the first-time or infrequent reader, with a bias
toward semantic naming, metaphor, and the palette of the QWERTY-based
keyboard. Anecdotes abound of the complex agglutination of naming patterns
in enterprise-focused frameworks.

I agree with the observation that standardizing some idiomatic,
natural-language verbalizations would tend to help bridge the gap between
those two cultures (hints toward C.P. Snow intended).

To use examples from this thread, verbalizing <*> as "apply" seems to
bridge those two optimizations, with "ap" betraying the mathematical style
of compression over obviousness, and the rest ("spaceship", etc.) showing a
hacker-style love of humor and inside-jokes that is gratifying to the
insiders but off-putting to outsiders/novices.

Each of the optimizations above is legitimate and valued by its community;
insensitivity to those cultural issues will likely continue to reinforce
the separation.

The interesting question to me is whether that's what each community
wants.


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Tony Morris <tonymorris at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 04/04/14 03:28, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many
>> of the operators, such as <*>.  I know that >>= is pronounced "bind", but
>> what about the others?  Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere,
>> or at least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point?
>
>
>  Did you try a search? There are links out there.
>
>  But it's true that a search will only get you so far. I think what we
> don't have enough is idiomatic English coupled to idiomatic Haskell.
>
>  It's like a proof/program of a proposition in Euclidean geometry. One
> just gets it visually and doesn't really bother with verbalizing on the
> tongue.
>
>  Provide a code fragment here, and folks will help you with it.
>
> -- Kim-Ee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing listBeginners at haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
>  I have heard the following for (<*>)
>
> * angle butt
> * spaceship
> * apply
> * ap
> * angry eye
>
>
> --
> Tony Morrishttp://tmorris.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
>


--
Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity.
- Plato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140404/582744ae/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

Dániel Arató
I call (>>) "proceed". Not canonical or anything.

Daniel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How do you pronounce these operators?

Tony Morris
 When instructing, I use the term "apply" for many reasons. I highly
recommend this term.


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:40 AM, D?niel Arat? <exitconsole at gmail.com> wrote:

> I call (>>) "proceed". Not canonical or anything.
>
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140405/aba2c3d6/attachment.html>