I'd presume we'd keep the current fixity. It plays much nicer when mixed with >>= and the like, and it doesn't mix with the <$> <*> crowd despite appearances anyways even if you give it the "obvious" fixity. -Edward On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:53 AM, lennart spitzner <lsp@informatik.uni-kiel.de
wrote:
infixl 1 I assume? (lens and some other libs agree on this fixity already.)
(also, +1)
On 21/08/16 19:23, David Feuer wrote:
The <&> operator is rather popular:
(<&>) :: Functor f => f a -> (a -> b) -> f b (<&>) = flip fmap
Now that we have (&) in Data.Function, I think we should have (<&>) in Data.Functor.
_______________________________________________ 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