But we don't want to imply it's commutative either. Having something "bidirectional" like <> or <+> feels more commutative than associative to me.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM, John Meacham<j...@repetae.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 02:54:38PM -0400, Brent Yorgey wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:45:45AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: >> > I've thought for a while that it would be very nice indeed if the Monoid >> > class had a more concise operator for infix appending than "a `mappend` b". >> > I wonder if other people are of a similar opinion, and if so, whether this >> > is worth submitting a libraries@ proposal over. >> >> +1. >> >> IIRC Jules Bean has proposed using (+>) for this purpose, which I >> like. It has the advantages of (a) not clashing with any other >> (common) operators, (b) making more obvious the fact that mappend is >> not necessarily commutative, and (c) providing the obvious (<+) for >> 'flip mappend' which is sometimes useful. > > (+>) seems to imply to me that the operator is non-associative. Something > like (<>) or (<+>) would be better. > > > John > > -- > John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ - http://notanumber.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
