If you're having bikeshedding problems, I feel bad for you son. Lens got 99 operators, but a (|>) ain't one.<br><br>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!<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>-Michael<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bos@serpentine.com" target="_blank">bos@serpentine.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, 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>$. is kind of the worst of all possible worlds to me. <div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Agreed.</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Libraries mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org">Libraries@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>