+1 for a flipped function operator.

It makes reading a pipeline of operations more natural. "x & foo & bar & baz" means take x, apply foo, then apply bar... it makes the source code read easily without having to push and pop operations from a mental stack or reading the source in an unnatural direction "baz $ bar $ foo x".

And when it comes to lenses, I can't imagine not being able to write "foo & bar .~ x & baz .~ y".

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Erik Hesselink <hesselink@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Wvv <vitea3v@rambler.ru> wrote:
> 2.1) Some people are against this function at all
> 2.2) Some people do not want to have this function, but not categorically
> 2.3) Few(?) people doesn't care
> 2.4) Many people wish to add flipped function application

I think this phrasing is too loaded given the actual numbers. I've
counted in this thread, being generous with the +1s (bikeshedding the
name counts as an implicit +1) and I find 11 in favor, 7 against and 6
unknown/don't care.

Erik

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries