Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function

[Bryan O'Sullivan]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> We converted to (&) because of its incredible terseness and general lack
> of use across hackage. For DSL purposes, to me it is key that this operator
> be as succinct as possible and (&) is remarkably underutilized in haskell
> libraries today, due to the fact that (|) is taken by syntax, and our
> C-inspired brains tend to pair them.
>

That seems fairly convincing to me. Count me as a +1 on Yitz's original
proposal of & *or* on |> instead, whichever wins in the court of popular
opinion.

I assume this will have the not-very exciting type of

(a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> a -> c

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20121120/ad9f665d/attachment.htm>