On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Ariel J. Birnbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all! > > When working with Applicative, I often find myself defining and using > this operator: > > (<%>) :: (Applicative f) => f (a -> b) -> a -> f b > f <%> x = f <*> pure x
Yeah, me too. The syntax chosen for applicative does not encode all the information about the lifting of each side. For example, as far as I can tell, <$> is appropriate for both this and for fmap. So I think <%> is a fine name (I often use % as the application operator when I'm encoding lambda calculus). Luke _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
