My guess reading the original article is that the naming convention is based on the contraction of the signatures, so
(a: A) => B
ab
(a: A) => number
an
(an: (a: A) => number) => number
ann
Actually it looks good to me as the examples are such a general functions but I'm open to alternatives, what naming convention are you proposing?
I personally would use variable names that describe what the values mean and do
function zoop<A, B>(abb: (a: A) => (b: B) => B, b: B, as: Array<A>): B
could be
function zoop<A, B>(reducer: (previousValue: A) => (currentValue: B) => B, initialValue: B, array: Array<A>): B
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
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.
My guess reading the original article is that the naming convention is based on the contraction of the signatures, so
(a: A) => Bbecomesab(a: A) => numberbecomesan(an: (a: A) => number) => numberbecomesannActually it looks good to me as the examples are such a general functions but I'm open to alternatives, what naming convention are you proposing?
I personally would use variable names that describe what the values mean and do
could be