Re: [Haskell-cafe] commending "Design concepts in programming languages"

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Max Rabkin wrote:

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:

...

At least, I cannot remember seeing the other notation (first morphism on the left) in category theory literature so far. It’s just that my above-mentioned professor told me that category theorists would use the first-morphism-on-the-left notation.

I've seen the notation f;g for g.f somewhere (and Wikipedia mentions it). I think it's less ambiguous than just fg (which I've seen for f.g too), but in Haskell we have the option of >>>. A flipped application might be nice to go with it. How about >$> ?

FYI: Unicode U+2A3E Zed notation relational composition (small circle over a 9) Examples at http://staff.washington.edu/jon/z/toolkit.html#pair3