Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function
jwlato at gmail.com
Thu Nov 22 00:49:05 CET 2012
> From: David Menendez <dave at zednenem.com>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Yitzchak Gale <gale at sefer.org> wrote:
> > It is a common idiom to write a sequence of composed combinators in
> > reverse order to the way they would be written with ($) or (.). That
> > naturally expresses the idea of the combinators as operations being
> > applied in the given order.
> I think the bar should be pretty high before we add a third way to write
> function application to base. How common is this? Common among whom? Why
> can't the existing idioms of (.) and ($) work just as well?
I guardedly agree with Dave Menendez. There are a very limited number of
convenient 1-character operators available, and I'm not certain that
function application should take up 3 of them.
On the other hand, this is a common enough idiom to have emerged in both
diagrams and lens at least.
(I'm not taking a position at this time)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries