> In Haskell, do you name every function with a
> prefix that advertises the type of its return
> value or one of its main arguments?
[... replies pointing out that some Haskell
functions do prefix their names with type names...]
I suggest those of you who think that Haskell
too deserves type-name prefixes for all its
function names start an initiative to rename
its `map', `add', `zip', `head', ... functions.
Map is always namespaced here (look at the right)? I expect other functions to be too.
Anyway, you try to focus on the weak points of the arguments. I understand, it's a natural defense mechanism. What I think is more relevant is to notice how in Haskell there is a strong will to group things together. That's what you'd take out of the example.
That said, yes, some generic functions will have troube finding a good home. We already addressed this point several time but here it is once more: those function could either be left untouched, or they could be moved to `seq-`, or yet another solution...
But I suggest we don't talk about these corner cases for and and focus only on concrete proposals: What we take from s.el and put under the string- namespace, how we alias some of the regexp functions.