> > And if I call the label on the stones "integer_from_string"
> > and "integer_from_intlist", unflipped (.) does as well.
>
> But then the question is which function name is more natural.
> Arjen's choice of names reflects Haskell's syntax for function
> types:
>
> intlist_to_integer
> :: [Int] -> Integer
>
> Or look at o's and flippo's types:
>
> (.) :: ((a -> b) -> (c -> a)) -> (c -> b)
> flip (.) :: ((a -> b) -> (b -> c)) -> (a -> c)
>
> Surely the second one is much cooler!
Yes, indeed!
Then, the question is why we write
result = function operand1 operand2
instead of
operand1 operand2 function = result
I actually think the latter is cooler. :)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Yuichi Tsuchimoto |
| Compiler Technology Dept., Middleware Division, Fujitsu Ltd. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
