Jonathan King writes:
> How about:
>
> f |> g |> h |> ...
>
> for [reverse composition], and
>
> g <| f
>
> for "normal" composition?
I like this because it follows the easy-to-remember rule
"Use symmetric glyphs for commutative operations and asymmetric glyphs
for non-commutative operations. Reflect glyphs for flipped operations."
which I would suggest as a general guideline. (Unfortunately I don't
know whom to credit for this rule. Might be someone working on visual
programming.)
I understand the desire for a lightweight glyph for function composition
and also the desire for something similar to the usual mathematical
notation. But in this case I find reflected glyphs for forward and
backward composition far more appealing. (I wouldn't suggest replacing
"-" by an asymmetric glyph though.)
Similarly, I would prefer a pair of reflected symbols for normal and
reversed function application, e.g., <$ and $>. (Yes, these are not 100%
reflected, but almost.)
Heribert.
