Proposal #3339: Add (+>) as a synonym for mappend
johan.tibell at gmail.com
Sun Nov 6 20:59:38 CET 2011
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace at me.com>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries