why can't you surround (+) in backticks and have it be infix?
David House wrote: : | You can fake this: | | (-!) = ($) | (!-) = flip ($) | | foo -! liftM2 (,) !- bar | | Not perfect, but it's interesting nonetheless. | | And yes, this was a product of some #haskell | brainstorming and algorithm tennis. :) :-) Was anyone in that brainstorm thinking of Chung-chieh Shan's -: and :- (http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2002-July/003215.html) or was the similarity just a really cool coincidence? Regards, Tom
On 08/01/07, tpledger@ihug.co.nz
Was anyone in that brainstorm thinking of Chung-chieh Shan's -: and :- (http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2002-July/003215.html)
It's likely. I don't remember exactly where it came from. -- -David House, dmhouse@gmail.com
tpledger@ihug.co.nz wrote:
David House wrote:
You can fake this:
(-!) = ($) (!-) = flip ($)
foo -! liftM2 (,) !- bar
Was anyone in that brainstorm thinking of Chung-chieh Shan's -: and :- (http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2002-July/003215.html) or was the similarity just a really cool coincidence?
I hope no-one seriously thinks the above syntax is clearer than: liftM2 (,) foo bar Brian. -- Operators: one small step for compilers, one giant leap for obfuscation. http://www.metamilk.com
participants (3)
-
Brian Hulley -
David House -
tpledger＠ihug.co.nz