I think maybe you misunderstood what one of us said. All we did was note that the "not equals" operator is different than the "normal" one in Haskell. Which is a good thing to know whether you're focused on aesthetics or not.
While I get what you're saying, the normal not-equal symbol is ≠. So calling it an idiosyncrasy sounds like c-style bias, as Haskell's version is closer to the mathematical symbol.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think maybe you misunderstood what one of us said. All we did was note that the "not equals" operator is different than the "normal" one in Haskell. Which is a good thing to know whether you're focused on aesthetics or not.
While I get what you're saying, the normal not-equal symbol is
≠. So calling it an idiosyncrasy sounds like c-style bias, as Haskell's version is closer to the mathematical symbol.