>Those who find this unnatural/difficult/arcane/etc may like to check out Unix-pipes (or English :-)
But chaining (a la pipes) isn't quite the same as composition. It's better compared with do-notation, which *does* use the ordering you suggest.
As for English: try pronouncing (.) as "of."
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Rein Henrichs <rein.henrichs@gmail.com> wrote:Pointfree is good for reasoning about composition. It can often be more readable than pointful code when the focus of the function is on composition of other functions. For example, take this function from Bird's Pearls of Functional Algorithm Design:boxes = map ungroup . ungroup . map cols . group . map groupAnd better if you read it in the right (ie left to right order)boxes = map group >>> group >>> map cols >> ungroup >>> map ungroup(From Control.Arrow)Even better if the 3-char clunky >>> is reduced to the 1-char ⋙
map group ⋙ group ⋙ map cols ⋙ ungroup ⋙ map ungroup(From Control.Arrow.Unicode)[Those who find this unnatural/difficult/arcane/etc may like to check out Unix-pipes (or English :-) ]Some wishful thinking in the same direction
(uses python but python is not really relevant) : http://blog.languager.org/2014/04/unicoded-python.htmlWhich to some extent I found works in Haskell : http://blog.languager.org/2014/05/unicode-in-haskell-source.htmlIf only Haskell would go further!!
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners