8 Apr
2010
8 Apr
'10
3:31 p.m.
+1 from me for inclusion of <$$>. Mainly because of the symmetry argument. When you look at the types of (<*>), (<**>); (>>=), (=<<) and (<$>) you can expect there to be a operator with (<$$>)'s type. Its non-existence is surprising. I like the law-of-least-surprise in library design. I do not like the specific symbol <$$>. It is similar to <**> which is nice, but I also don't like <**>. I prefer some sort of visual indication of direction. Like (>>=) versus (=<<) or (⋙) versus (⋘). But in this case history wins over aesthetics. Roel