bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b

[Dan Burton]

I like this argument order better, because it shows how (a -> m b) gets
lifted into (m a -> m b). If we only get one word, and we have to choose
between naming (>>=) and (=<<), I'd choose the latter for this reason.

I don't care what the name is, but having an alphabetic name for most
operators would be nice. Haskell's custom operators are a turn-off for
several people I know. I don't think Haskell the language should push
operators onto people that don't want to use them. Nor should the burden be
on them to create an alias.

-----

If I could go back and redesign Haskell, I'd make it so that operators
could only be defined as synonyms of alphabetically-named functions.

infixl 6 (+) = plus


-- Dan Burton

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Felipe Lessa <felipe.lessa at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 11-12-2014 10:38, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> > Thus it is generally a good idea to indent with a fixed size, instead of
> > indenting according to function names.
>
> I agree and that's what I do.  However, Chris and Oliver indented their
> examples by 5 spaces, which is pretty odd (pun intended), so I imagine
> they prefer otherwise and I've listed that as a possible disadvantage.
>
> Cheers, :)
>
> --
> Felipe.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141211/26359b89/attachment.html>