[Haskell-cafe] Looking for a paper

[Richard O'Keefe]

Could it possibly be Dijkstra's mid-2000 essay on notation?
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1300.html
Dijkstra used f.x and a programming language I used in the 80s that was
designed in the 60s used x.f and that worked very nicely with thinking
of record fields as functions.
F# of course has both f x and x |> f, where |> has caught on as $ did not.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 01:45, Ben Lippmeier <benl at ouroborus.net> wrote:

>
>
> > On 10 Apr 2019, at 12:00 am, Michael Orlitzky <michael at orlitzky.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone knows that parentheses suck for function application.
> >
> > But I'm looking for a CS paper that argues that function application
> > should have its own explicit syntax in a functional programming
> > language. I believe, in the paper, that a dot "." was used, but this
> > would be analogous to Haskell's "$" function, except that it would be
> > made part of the language definition.
> >
> > I think it came up on this mailing list (where else would I have seen
> > it?), and if anyone remembers the name or author I'd be grateful.
>
>
> Hi Michael, long time..
>
> Check out:
>
> A useful lambda-notation.
> Fairouz Kamareddine, Rob Nederpelt.
> Theoretical Computer Science 115 (1996) 85-109
>
> They use “item notation”, and argue that maybe function application isn’t
> what we should be writing to begin with.
>
> Ben.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20190605/e23bdc43/attachment.html>