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

On Feb 18, 2017 3:24 PM, "Edward Kmett" <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm weakly +1 on this proposal. In my experience

foo <&> \x -> ... 

works out as a nice idiom because it avoids having to parenthesize the lambda unlike the usual <$> convention.

For me, I can just make lens re-export the Data.Functor version on newer GHCs.

-Edward

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Siddhanathan Shanmugam <siddhanathan+eml@gmail.com> wrote:
For completeness, your proposal should also specify from which
> module this will be exported and what the fixity and precedence will be.

module Data.Functor, infixl 1, and should not be in prelude.

Those arguments seems to me as compelling today as they were 7
> years ago, what has changed meanwhile?


-- Sid


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel <abela@chalmers.se> wrote:
+1 from me.  --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:
"BvD" == Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas@gmail.com> writes:

BvD> I'm still in favour of this so a +1 from me.

+1 from me too.



--
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

andreas.abel@gu.se
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/


_______________________________________________
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