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