10 Oct
2013
10 Oct
'13
1:19 p.m.
On 10/10/13 16:16, David Menendez wrote:
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.
As a data point: I have in fact used <$$> as (flip fmap) before, with this exact reasoning. Twan