Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
I find "ctx |> currTok |> tokenType" to be more readable than "tokenType $ currTok $ ctx" because you're not reading the code in reverse. That's my primary complaint with "." and "$".
Seconded. That's why I'd like to see the arguments to (.) swapped, but it's too late for that. A useable replacement is (>>>) from the Arrow instance for (->), which gives:
translate :: String -> String translate = createParseContext >>> readToFirstIdentifier >>> dealWithDeclarator >>> consolidateOutput
It reads from left to right and it promotes a more functional style. The operator could be a bit easier on the eyes, though. Udo. -- Always call a spade a spade, except in classes that both dig holes and play bridge. -- a guideline for Eiffel programmers