[Haskell-cafe] commending "Design concepts in programming languages"

[Gregg Reynolds]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Max Rabkin <max.rabkin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
> <g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org> wrote:
>> At least, I cannot
>> remember seeing the other notation (first morphism on the left) in
category
>> theory literature so far. It’s just that my above-mentioned professor
told me
>> that category theorists would use the first-morphism-on-the-left
notation.
>
> I've seen the notation f;g for g.f somewhere (and Wikipedia mentions
> it). I think it's less ambiguous than just fg (which I've seen for f.g
> too), but in Haskell we have the option of >>>. A flipped application
> might be nice to go with it. How about >$> ?

FYI:

Unicode U+2A3E  Zed notation relational composition (small circle over a 9)

Examples at http://staff.washington.edu/jon/z/toolkit.html#pair3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20090514/a0ab2a52/attachment.html