Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

[Elliot Cameron]

For the record, it makes no sense to me to have (<&>) *without* ffor. I am
personally ambivalent about (<&>) in base, but I'd be -1 if it were not
accompanied by ffor.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Joe Hillenbrand <joehillen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 Please, please, please can we have this?
>
> > Could we instead have "ffor" which can be used prefix or infix and
> avoids the operator soup problem?
>
> -1
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel <abela at chalmers.se> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am using `for`
> >>
> >>
> >> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda-2.5.2/docs/Agda-
> Utils-Functor.html
> >>
> >> and I think taking `for` for Applicative was name theft.
> >
> >
> > This crime may no longer be charged under the statute of limitations. The
> > federal code provides that no person can be tried or punished for any
> > noncapital offense unless they are indicted or information is instituted
> > within five years of the date the offense was committed.
> >
> > Of course, that is here within the U.S. You might have better luck in the
> > international court of public opinion. =)
> >
> > -Edward
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170222/990cc43a/attachment.html>