News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998). Parent comment

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by continuational on Sunday April 16, 2017 @05:23AM (#14125050)
I'll just leave [Control.Lens.Operators](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-4.15.1/docs/Control-...) here...

In defense of Haskell, the situation is similar in Scala. I think some people just prefer inventing their own operators instead of using descriptive names.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by name_for_now on Sunday April 16, 2017 @01:49PM (#14126625)
To be fair, a number of those operators are

> This is an infix alias for cons. > This is an infix alias for snoc. > A convenient infix (flipped) version of toListOf. > An infix version of itoListOf.

And a lot of them are (<+~) and friends.

[ Parent | on HN ]