[Haskell-cafe] Function application like a Unix pipe

[Scherrer, Chad]

Henning Thielemann <lemming at henning-thielmann.de> writes:

> Since
>   (a . b) x
>   a $ b x
>   a (b x)
> 
> are equivalent, do you also want to reverse function and 
> argument in order to match argument order of . and $ ?
> 
> That is
>   x (b . a)
>   x b $ a
>   (x b) a
> ?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking
whether one should be allowed to write x f instead of f x? I don't think
anyone is advocating this, but is can be convenient to have an infix
operator for this purpose.

Chad Scherrer
Computational Mathematics Group
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." -- Groucho Marx