At 2002-10-28 22:41, Nick Name wrote:

The only thing that should be done is to invent a special name for the juxtaposition operator (or just to use $), and to let (->) become an instance of the "Function" class.

I think function application has to be primitive and not an operator. Otherwise you would end up with this: f a is syntactic sugar for f `juxtapose` a is syntactic sugar for (juxtapose f) a is syntactic sugar for (juxtapose ((juxtapose juxtapose) f)) a is syntactic sugar for (juxtapose ((juxtapose juxtapose) ((juxtapose ((juxtapose juxtapose) juxtapose)) f))) a etc. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA