<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree with Dan here. `(=<<)` is the nicer operator from a
theoretical perspective, because (A) its signature can be
generalized to other categories and (B) it obeys the following
functor laws:<br>
<tt><br>
</tt><tt> (=<<) (f <=< g) = (=<<) f .
(=<<) g</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> (=<<) return = id</tt><br>
<br>
If we had to pick one operator to name, `(=<<)` should be the
one we pick.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/14, 7:34 AM, Dan Burton wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALSygwcMA=mHqbrNLJrykmbcsebkBUiM8tjB2iwWFuVCvQL1ug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I like this argument order better, because it shows
how (a -> m b) gets lifted into (m a -> m b). If we only
get one word, and we have to choose between naming (>>=)
and (=<<), I'd choose the latter for this reason.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't care what the name is, but having an alphabetic
name for most operators would be nice. Haskell's custom
operators are a turn-off for several people I know. I don't
think Haskell the language should push operators onto people
that don't want to use them. Nor should the burden be on them
to create an alias.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-----</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If I could go back and redesign Haskell, I'd make it so
that operators could only be defined as synonyms of
alphabetically-named functions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>infixl 6 (+) = plus</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">-- Dan Burton</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Felipe
Lessa <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:felipe.lessa@gmail.com" target="_blank">felipe.lessa@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">On 11-12-2014 10:38, Henning Thielemann wrote:<br>
> Thus it is generally a good idea to indent with a
fixed size, instead of<br>
> indenting according to function names.<br>
<br>
</span>I agree and that's what I do. However, Chris and
Oliver indented their<br>
examples by 5 spaces, which is pretty odd (pun intended), so
I imagine<br>
they prefer otherwise and I've listed that as a possible
disadvantage.<br>
<br>
Cheers, :)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Felipe.<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Libraries mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org">Libraries@haskell.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries"
target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org">Libraries@haskell.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>