Speaking of small functions

[Johannes Waldmann]

kahl at cas.mcmaster.ca wrote:

> ... And I definitely prefer that order:
> 
> (=>>=) :: (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> (a -> m c)

cultural note:

it is one big problem to get the argument ordering
for composition (of relations, including functions) "right".
See any undergraduate textbook on how they confuse this.

In fact, the root of the problem quite possibly
is the idea that the function stands before its argument,
which is contrary to the flow of information (and reading).

There is one textbook http://www.infres.enst.fr/~jsaka/ETA/eta.html
that takes the radical approach of writing  not f(x)  but  x f.
Then  x(f.g) = (xf)g  looks only natural.
-- 
-- Johannes Waldmann -- Tel/Fax (0341) 3076 6479/80 --
---- http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/ -------