Is it safe to say that most of us are agreeing that <i>something</i> like this should be included in the Prelude? Does anyone feel strongly that this should <i>not</i> be in the Prelude?<div><br></div><div>If such is the case, then it seems we have three popular options for the color of this shed:</div>
<div><br></div><div>& as seen currently in lens</div><div>|> as seen in ML</div><div># as seen in diagrams</div><div><br></div><div>I find these to all be acceptable options, and would be happy to see any of them defined in the Prelude as x `op` f = f x. My 2c: I lean towards |> because it is already used in ML, and because I believe it is the most foreign to newcomers, and therefore the most likely to <i>not</i> be misinterpreted. On a huge tangent, suppose we used Lisk, which supports "chaining" the same operator as if it were a var-arg function. (|> 5 isZero not) is very close to the equivalent Clojure (-> 5 zero? not). Presumably -> as a Haskell operator name is out of the question.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-- Dan Burton</div>