Ok. When nobody can agree on a graphical operator can it be shortened to "mop" and "munit"? (Personally I'm for (++). (Yeah, I know.))
-ljr Daniel Peebles wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
