Note: (>>>) is a completely different operator.<div><br></div><div>>>> is flipped (.). The proposed & is flipped $.</div><div><br></div><div>(>>>) :: Category cat => cat a b -> cat b c -> cat a c</div>
<div><br></div><div>(&) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b</div><div><br></div><div>-Edward</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Henning Thielemann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lemming@henning-thielemann.de" target="_blank">lemming@henning-thielemann.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Yitzchak Gale wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It is a common idiom to write a sequence of composed combinators in<br>
reverse order to the way they would be written with ($) or (.). That<br>
naturally expresses the idea of the combinators as operations being<br>
applied in the given order.<br>
<br>
This comes up so often, and is commonly used so many times in a single<br>
expression, that Control.Arrow.>>> is far too wordy, and even a two-<br>
character operator is awkward.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Functional metapost called it (#). But for me (>>>) is ok. It is even more descriptive than (&).<br>
<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>