Speaking of small functions
waldmann at imn.htwk-leipzig.de
Mon Oct 30 08:04:48 EST 2006
kahl at cas.mcmaster.ca wrote:
> ... And I definitely prefer that order:
> (=>>=) :: (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> (a -> m c)
it is one big problem to get the argument ordering
for composition (of relations, including functions) "right".
See any undergraduate textbook on how they confuse this.
In fact, the root of the problem quite possibly
is the idea that the function stands before its argument,
which is contrary to the flow of information (and reading).
There is one textbook http://www.infres.enst.fr/~jsaka/ETA/eta.html
that takes the radical approach of writing not f(x) but x f.
Then x(f.g) = (xf)g looks only natural.
-- Johannes Waldmann -- Tel/Fax (0341) 3076 6479/80 --
---- http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/ -------
More information about the Libraries