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 "$". That's especially the case when I'm spreading the code over multiple lines:
-- Translate a C type declaration into English. translate :: String -> String translate s = s |> createParseContext |> readToFirstIdentifier |> dealWithDeclarator |> consolidateOutput
If you were wanting to be able to deal with exceptions/ errors etc during the translation process, you'd usually use a monad (Haskell's version of a pipe), in which case the operations could still be read left to right eg: translate :: (Monad m) => String -> m String translate = do createParseContext readToFirstIdentifier dealWithDeclarator consolidateOutput So while . and $ are useful for combining functions together in parts of a program, and are consistent with the idea that the function always comes first followed by its argument, the top level (at least) would usually be monadic and hence not require |> to get left-to-right readability. I've copied the links on monads below from a previous post by Jared: http://www.nomaware.com/monads/html/ http://haskell.org/hawiki/Monad Regards, Brian.