Speaking of small functions

[Duncan Coutts]

On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 14:57 -0500, kahl at cas.mcmaster.ca wrote:
>  > 
>  > On 2006-10-29 at 09:30EST kahl at cas.mcmaster.ca  wrote:
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Speaking of small functions, Kleisli composition should at least be in
>  > >  > Control.Monad. It's a simple thing, and not commonly explicitly used
>  > >  > at the moment, but rather important conceptually.
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > (@@) :: (Monad m) => (b -> m c) -> (a -> m b) -> (a -> m c)
>  > >  > g @@ f = \x -> f x >>= g
>  > > 
>  > > I support this strongly.
>  > > 
>  > > My notation is (=>>=), to go with (>>=).
>  > 
>  > That's a better symbol for it. (@@) could be just about
>  > anything, while (=>>=) is suggestive. Though I think what it
>  > suggests might be with the arguments in a different order?
> 
> Yes, indeed! Thanks for pointing this out!
> And I definitely prefer that order:
> 
> (=>>=) :: (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> (a -> m c)

Ok. Let's have both (=>>=) and (=<<=).

If that's a consensus, then someone make a darcs patch with haddock
documentation and a trac bug etc.

http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions

Duncan