Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function
acowley at seas.upenn.edu
Wed Nov 21 04:00:49 CET 2012
On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Michael Sloan <mgsloan at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you're having bikeshedding problems, I feel bad for you son. Lens got 99 operators, but a (|>) ain't one.
> In all seriousness though, in light of edward's detailed reasonings, I'm fully behind (&) instead of (#). ML-compatibility shouldn't be the concern, and the happenstance of (&) being relatively unused is a great opportunity. Frequently used operators with concise meanings should have concise symbols - works out well!
If we had a nice LaTeX triangle for |>, I'd be for that. But we live in a symbol impoverished world, and I prefer & to the old lens standby of %. So, for today's Haskell, I'm a +1 for &.
More information about the Libraries