2008/4/24 Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Mittwoch, 23. April 2008 01:20 schrieb Duncan Coutts: > > […] > > > > Surely there was a justification to having $ be the opposite > > associativity from application and not just a different precedence. Does > > anyone know what it was? > > Probably the fact that you can write > > > f $ g $ h $ u $ v $ w $ x > > instead of > > > f (g (h (u (v (w x))))) > > and thereby avoid building forests of parantheses. > But of course, f . g . h . u . v . w $ x means the same thing, and has nicer properties with regard to refactoring and formal reasoning due to the associativity of (.), so probably not a whole lot of thought went into the choice.
- Cale _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
