Re: Speaking of small functions

On 2006-10-29 at 09:30EST kahl@cas.mcmaster.ca wrote:

...

...

Speaking of small functions, Kleisli composition should at least be in Control.Monad. It's a simple thing, and not commonly explicitly used at the moment, but rather important conceptually.

(@@) :: (Monad m) => (b -> m c) -> (a -> m b) -> (a -> m c) g @@ f = \x -> f x >>= g

I support this strongly.

My notation is (=>>=), to go with (>>=).

That's a better symbol for it. (@@) could be just about anything, while (=>>=) is suggestive. Though I think what it suggests might be with the arguments in a different order?

Yes, indeed! Thanks for pointing this out! And I definitely prefer that order: (=>>=) :: (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> (a -> m c) Wolfram