Johan Tibell wrote:
On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
-1 for adding such an operator at all. Languages benefit from consistnet idiom; too many ways of doing the same thing are not always good.
-1 for me for the same reason. After looking at examples in this thread I don't find that the loss in readability is worth it.
Also for beginners I don't want to explain yet another way to write function application.
-1 from me as well. The (#) operator is quite natural and useful in the diagrams library, but the thing is that even though it is *implemented* as function application, it is *semantically* not a function application. It only serves to furnish shapes and diagrams with additional properties; it's type is very restricted, so to speak. Since the use cases mentioned (diagrams, lenses) are very similar, perhaps there is a general combinator (&) that does the job for both, but which has a much more restricted type and is not equivalent to reverse function application. Maybe an abstraction like "Settable functors", "Thingomorphisms with properties" or something like that. Best regards, Heinrich Apfelmus -- http://apfelmus.nfshost.com