Proposal #3339: Add (+>) as a synonym for mappend

Johan Tibell johan.tibell at
Sun Nov 6 20:59:38 CET 2011

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace at>wrote:

> So what is the rationale for the new Monoidal operator <> to be declared
> infixr 6?  Why can it not simply preserve the same fixity as already used
> by Pretty's <> ?

Could someone put together a list of the operators in base and
their precedence. Does making <> have precedence 6 change anything? It has
right associativity because it's the right thing for "stream like" uses of
<> (lists, builders, CPS).

Aside: I don't think we should try to avoid collisions with downstream
symbols when growing the base libraries. It's just not a scalable approach
engineering wise. We should use namespaces to distinguish symbols from
different packages.

-- Johan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list