Re: Why isn’t (>>>) a method?

David Menendez dave at
Wed Nov 26 16:02:36 EST 2008

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
<g9ks157k at> wrote:
> I wonder why (>>>) is an ordinary function instead of a method with a default
> implementation based on (.).

It's easier to explain and provides fewer chances for mistakes. It's
the same reason Arrow no longer has both "arr" and "pure".

I'm not sure why they chose the name (.) for Category, rather than
(>>>) or (<<<).

I also think trying to shoe-horn a new, incompatible definition for
Arrow into a base-3.0.* release was a mistake. The whole point of
having a versioning policy is lost if you don't follow it. Given how
isolated Arrow is in the standard libraries, they could have just
created a new class and deprecated the old one without causing much

Dave Menendez <dave at>

More information about the Libraries mailing list