Re: Proposal: Add (&) to Data.Function

On 21 November 2012 14:00, Anthony Cowley wrote:

On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Michael Sloan wrote:

...

If you're having bikeshedding problems, I feel bad for you son. Lens got 99 operators, but a (|>) ain't one.

In all seriousness though, in light of edward's detailed reasonings, I'm fully behind (&) instead of (#). ML-compatibility shouldn't be the concern, and the happenstance of (&) being relatively unused is a great opportunity. Frequently used operators with concise meanings should have concise symbols - works out well!

-Michael

If we had a nice LaTeX triangle for |>, I'd be for that. But we live in a symbol impoverished world, and I prefer & to the old lens standby of %. So, for today's Haskell, I'm a +1 for &.

fgl - which is in the Platform - uses &. Admittedly this isn't likely to affect many people though.

Anthony _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com