On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Max Rabkin <<a href="mailto:max.rabkin@gmail.com">max.rabkin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch<br>> <<a href="mailto:g9ks157k@acme.softbase.org">g9ks157k@acme.softbase.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> At least, I cannot<br>>> remember seeing the other notation (first morphism on the left) in category<br>>> theory literature so far. It’s just that my above-mentioned professor told me<br>>> that category theorists would use the first-morphism-on-the-left notation.<br>
><br>> I've seen the notation f;g for g.f somewhere (and Wikipedia mentions<br>> it). I think it's less ambiguous than just fg (which I've seen for f.g<br>> too), but in Haskell we have the option of >>>. A flipped application<br>
> might be nice to go with it. How about >$> ?<br><br>FYI:<br><br> Unicode U+2A3E Zed notation relational composition (small circle over a 9)<br><br>Examples at <a href="http://staff.washington.edu/jon/z/toolkit.html#pair3">http://staff.washington.edu/jon/z/toolkit.html#pair3</a>