On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Edward Kmett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ekmett@gmail.com" target="_blank">ekmett@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>We converted to (&) because of its incredible terseness and general lack of use across hackage. For DSL purposes, to me it is key that this operator be as succinct as possible and (&) is remarkably underutilized in haskell libraries today, due to the fact that (|) is taken by syntax, and our C-inspired brains tend to pair them.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div></div></font></span></blockquote></div><br><div>That seems fairly convincing to me. Count me as a +1 on Yitz's original proposal of & *or* on |> instead, whichever wins in the court of popular opinion.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I assume this will have the not-very exciting type of</div><div><br></div><div>(a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> a -> c</div><div><br></div><div>?</div>