search

hemanth / functional-programming-jargon

Jargon from the functional programming world in simple terms!
http://git.io/fp-jargons
MIT License
18.59k stars 1.02k forks source link

Create a section/wiki page for unfamiliar or potentially confusing notation #135

Open danbernier opened 7 years ago

danbernier commented 7 years ago

Thank you for putting this together! I've been studying functional programming on and off for years, and this has reinforced some of the concepts I've learned, clarified others, and taught me new ones. Very nice work.

As I was reading, I came across two notation idioms that confused me, that I'm pretty sure have nothing to do with FP:

Anyway, these details can confuse, and like I said, they're not about FP, so I was thinking it might be nice to have a section, or a wiki page, for them - almost like the sections at the front of many programming books, where they explain how code sections are formatted, that kind of thing. I'm happy to create a wiki page, but I don't know the explanations for either ≍ or ;[1].

FlorianWendelborn commented 7 years ago

@danbernier ;[1] is most likely due to not using semicolons. Browsers won't automatically detect that the line ended when you start it with [.

danbernier commented 7 years ago

Thanks @dodekeract! That's exactly the kind of useful info I'm looking to collect.

jethrolarson commented 7 years ago

=== or == aren't correct since they both deal with reference equality. Mathematically two lists are equal if they contain the same items in the same order. However two arrays may be equivalent even though they're different references.

You're right to point out that we don't explain the symbol. Would you rather we explain the symbol or use english? E.g. xs.map(x => f(g(x))) is equivalent to xs.map(g).map(f)

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017, 10:14 AM Dan Bernier notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks @dodekeract https://github.com/dodekeract! That's exactly the kind of useful info I'm looking to collect.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon/issues/135#issuecomment-269913277, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB-4LKafv2IEBUtgbsS8frg6Sa76Cc5ks5rN-0EgaJpZM4LYvWZ .

danbernier commented 7 years ago

I'm all for using the symbol, since it expands the language by standing in for a specific, precise notion. But let's explain that notion somewhere, for those who are unfamiliar with it.

~ This message was made with 100% thumbs.

On Jan 1, 2017 9:27 PM, "Jethro Larson" notifications@github.com wrote:

=== or == aren't correct since they both deal with reference equality. Mathematically two lists are equal if they contain the same items in the same order. However two arrays may be equivalent even though they're different references.

You're right to point out that we don't explain the symbol. Would you rather we explain the symbol or use english? E.g. xs.map(x => f(g(x))) is equivalent to xs.map(g).map(f)

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017, 10:14 AM Dan Bernier notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks @dodekeract https://github.com/dodekeract! That's exactly the kind of useful info I'm looking to collect.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon/ issues/135#issuecomment-269913277, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB- 4LKafv2IEBUtgbsS8frg6Sa76Cc5ks5rN-0EgaJpZM4LYvWZ .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon/issues/135#issuecomment-269930184, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAzFTbjFoc55Ctz57zheiocFbr-hzwLks5rOGCZgaJpZM4LYvWZ .

danbernier commented 7 years ago

I found issue #46, which seems to speak to the equality question; linking it here for completeness' sake.

Would still love to see a section for this.