24 Apr
2008
24 Apr
'08
3:09 p.m.
2008/4/24 Wolfgang Jeltsch
Am Mittwoch, 23. April 2008 01:20 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
[…]
Surely there was a justification to having $ be the opposite associativity from application and not just a different precedence. Does anyone know what it was?
Probably the fact that you can write
f $ g $ h $ u $ v $ w $ x
instead of
f (g (h (u (v (w x)))))
and thereby avoid building forests of parantheses.
But of course, f . g . h . u . v . w $ x means the same thing, and has nicer properties with regard to refactoring and formal reasoning due to the associativity of (.), so probably not a whole lot of thought went into the choice. - Cale