On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Siddhanathan Shanmugam wrote:
This was proposed about 7 years ago, and rejected at the time: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3962
From that ticket
I'm not in favor of this proposal. Naming trivial compositions puts a complexity tax on all users of the library and we end up with 2*n operators instead of n operators and one flip function. It's trivial to define the function locally or in a helper module.
To elaborate: At work some of our core APIs have gotten dramatically more complex due to their maintainers allowing people, in interest to keep their own code cleaner, to add small helper functions to those APIs. This is now recognized as bad practice and discouraged with a call to "not fear the semicolon"! (We use mostly imperative languages at work.)
(by Johan Tibell) Those arguments seems to me as compelling today as they were 7 years ago, what has changed meanwhile?