Proposal: Add <&> to Data.Functor

[Edward Kmett]

I'd presume we'd keep the current fixity. It plays much nicer when mixed
with >>= and the like, and it doesn't mix with the <$> <*> crowd despite
appearances anyways even if you give it the "obvious" fixity.

-Edward

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:53 AM, lennart spitzner <lsp at informatik.uni-kiel.de
> wrote:

> > infixl 1
> I assume? (lens and some other libs agree on this fixity already.)
>
> (also, +1)
>
> On 21/08/16 19:23, David Feuer wrote:
> > The <&> operator is rather popular:
> >
> > (<&>) :: Functor f => f a -> (a -> b) -> f b
> > (<&>) = flip fmap
> >
> > Now that we have (&) in Data.Function, I think we should have (<&>) in
> > Data.Functor.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > Libraries at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20160901/e4a5d535/attachment.html>