Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function

Bryan O'Sullivan bos at
Tue Nov 20 19:44:50 CET 2012

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

More information about the Libraries mailing list