Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function
bos at serpentine.com
Tue Nov 20 19:44:50 CET 2012
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
I assume this will have the not-very exciting type of
(a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> a -> c
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries