<div>I'm rather fond of the (<>) suggestion, but would be happy with anything better than mappend! ;)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-Ed<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Brent Yorgey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:byorgey@seas.upenn.edu">byorgey@seas.upenn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:00:50AM -0400, <a href="mailto:ajb@spamcop.net">ajb@spamcop.net</a> wrote:<br>> G'day all.</div></blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im"><span id=""></span>><br>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:02:48PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:<br>><br>>> But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something<br>>> "bidirectional" like <> or <+> feels more commutative than associative<br>
>> to me.<br>><br>> Quoting John Meacham <<a href="mailto:john@repetae.net">john@repetae.net</a>>:<br>><br>>> Not really, think of '++', which doesn't commute but is visually<br>>> symmetric, or Data.Sequence.<>, or the common use of <> to mean<br>
>> concatination in pretty printers.<br>><br>> Other good examples are && and ||.<br><br></div>..wha? But those ARE commutative. Unless you mean with respect to<br>strictness?<br><font color="#888888"><br>
-Brent<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br><a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>