On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Dan Doel <dan.doel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
> F# uses (|>).   Maybe (#) is good.    To me (&) looks too commutative
> because it’s usually used for conjunction.

I mentioned this on the core list, but I'll mention it here, too:

I don't like (|>), because once you have this operator, you also might
as well have the functorial version. We have ($) and (<$>), and lens
has (&) and (<&>). The latter is useful for functorial 'for blocks':

    myFunctorValue <&> \x ->
      ...complex expression...

I actually think it's (significantly) more useful than (&). But, I
think (<|>>) is a pretty awful name for it, so I'd prefer a name that
makes both palatable.

I'm still not convinced we need flipped application in general[1], and I'm sure we don't need new name suggestions at this point, but:

Consider <**> :: f a -> f (a -> b) -> f b.

That suggests <$$> :: f a -> (a -> b) -> f b by analogy, so maybe $$ :: a -> (a -> b) -> b? This avoids the downsides of & while maybe being less ugly to combine with things than |>. Also, it looks like $, suggesting they're related.


[1]: Although it's certainly convenient for some idioms, like working with lenses.


--
Dave Menendez <dave@zednenem.com>
<http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>