Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function

Anthony Cowley acowley at
Wed Nov 21 04:00:49 CET 2012

On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Michael Sloan <mgsloan at> wrote:

> If you're having bikeshedding problems, I feel bad for you son.  Lens got 99 operators, but a (|>) ain't one.
> In all seriousness though, in light of edward's detailed reasonings, I'm fully behind (&) instead of (#).  ML-compatibility shouldn't be the concern, and the happenstance of (&) being relatively unused is a great opportunity.  Frequently used operators with concise meanings should have concise symbols - works out well!
> -Michael

If we had a nice LaTeX triangle for |>, I'd be for that. But we live in a symbol impoverished world, and I prefer & to the old lens standby of %. So, for today's Haskell, I'm a +1 for &.


More information about the Libraries mailing list