Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

I'm very much against the name ffor. Wouldn't forF be a better fit? On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Elliot Cameron wrote:

For the record, it makes no sense to me to have (<&>) without ffor. I am personally ambivalent about (<&>) in base, but I'd be -1 if it were not accompanied by ffor.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Joe Hillenbrand wrote:

...

+1 Please, please, please can we have this?

...

Could we instead have "ffor" which can be used prefix or infix and avoids the operator soup problem?

-1

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:

...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:

...

I am using `for`

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda-2.5.2/docs/Agda-Utils-Functor.html

and I think taking `for` for Applicative was name theft.

This crime may no longer be charged under the statute of limitations. The federal code provides that no person can be tried or punished for any noncapital offense unless they are indicted or information is instituted within five years of the date the offense was committed.

Of course, that is here within the U.S. You might have better luck in the international court of public opinion. =)

-Edward

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries