Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function

[Cale Gibbard]

On 22 November 2012 11:46, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> -1 for adding such an operator at all. Languages benefit from consistnet
>> idiom; too many ways of doing the same thing are not always good.
>
>
> -1 for me for the same reason. After looking at examples in this thread I
> don't find that the loss in readability is worth it.
>
> Also for beginners I don't want to explain yet another way to write function
> application.
>

-1 for more or less the same reason.

This is one of those little things which seems innocuous, but I don't
trust people enough to not use it to write horrible backward messes
that I'd rather not have to read.

At one point, the code in PLEAC for Haskell redefined (.) to be
flipped application, and the result was... let's say highly
unidiomatic. Even without the travesty of stealing composition for an
operation which doesn't generalise it, I'd rather not encourage this
sort of thing.