Flipped function application

[Oren Ben-Kiki]

Yes, both `flip (.)` and `flip ($)` make sense. As a lens user with quite
abit of existing code, keeping & as-is and adding # is appealing.


On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Wvv <vitea3v at rambler.ru> wrote:

> In my calculus, 13 in favor, 5 against, 2 not against, 5 don't care or
> neutral.
>
> I think that this thread is still important.
>
> Hayoo! can't parse "a -> (a -> b) -> b" (bug ?) and if we try to find (&)
> from Lens, this function has no signature at  Hayoo! :)
> Maybe Hayoo! don't like flipped function application as well. :))
> So, I can't say how many packages already have flipped function
> application.
>
> But I know, that at least one package is already added flipped function
> application and this package is popular!
>
> Yes, I'm saying abut Edward's "lens" library. As I understand, Edward
> choose
> the name looking which name was favorite in a discussion a year ago.  An
> this is good.
>
> (&) it will be de-facto a name for flipped function application if this
> thread dead.
>
>
>
> PROPOSAL: /Data.Function.Flipped/ package
>
>
> So, maybe "if you can't resist the process, lead it". I mean we still could
> choose the name.
>
> Who is in favor - we can lead the process not adding function into the base
> Who is against  - you can lead the process with find only one name for
> flipped function application
>
> *This solution satisfy everyone*:
> 1) Who is against - we don't add (#) into Data.Function and into the base
> 2) Who is in favor - we add flipped function application in a package and
> reserve module name and function name
>
> We all could choose the name and make a little package not in base:
> Data.Function.Flipped
> and add here this 1 function or may be 2 (as Andreas Abel suggested).
>
> For example, I prefer
> (#) = flip ($)
> and
> (&) = flip (.)
>
> This case:
>
>    g . f $ x == x # f & g
>
>
> Are you agree?
>
>
>
> Erik Hesselink wrote
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Wvv <
>
> > vitea3v@
>
> > > wrote:
> >> 2.1) Some people are against this function at all
> >> 2.2) Some people do not want to have this function, but not
> categorically
> >> 2.3) Few(?) people doesn't care
> >> 2.4) Many people wish to add flipped function application
> >
> > I think this phrasing is too loaded given the actual numbers. I've
> > counted in this thread, being generous with the +1s (bikeshedding the
> > name counts as an implicit +1) and I find 11 in favor, 7 against and 6
> > unknown/don't care.
> >
> > Erik
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
>
> > Libraries@
>
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Flipped-function-application-tp5738131p5738402.html
> Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20131013/3164a569/attachment.html>