Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

On 21 November 2012 14:00, Anthony Cowley <acowley at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Michael Sloan <mgsloan at gmail.com> 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 &.

fgl - which is in the Platform - uses &.

Admittedly this isn't likely to affect many people though.

>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com