Quoth AntC
We're on the slippery slope! Where will it end?
And now that I've found it, I so love:
customer.lastName.tail.head.toUpper -- Yay!
... compared to present practice, with where dot is function composition only - (toUpper.head.tail.lastName) customer So two competing meanings of ".", where one is literally the reverse of the other. Of course we won't be able to spell composition without spaces any more, so technically the backwards and forward sense of . are distinct, but it seems kind of unfortunate anyway. ... If you'll consider an idea from the peanut gallery ... for me, the dot notation for fields may as well be "spelling" as an operator - that is, customer.lastName deploys a field named ".lastName". If someone modified Haskell to allow postfix notation from this perspective, when compiler sees "customer.lastName", it would look for an identifier ".lastName", so it would work only where the fields are so declared: data Customer = Customer { .lastName :: String, .firstName :: String } Without explicit dot nomenclature (as per current practice), only normal function application syntax would be supported (as per current practice.) Unspaced composition (fromInteger.ord) would still be broken, I suppose, but the error (Not in scope: `.ord') would at least be pretty obvious. Donn