You mean apply the function on the right to the result of the left?Yes.(.) :: a - (a - b) - bx.f == f xPrefix usage:given: (f :: Integer - Char) and (g :: Double - Double - Integer)
(foo = .f) == \x - f x(bar = .g) == \x y = g x yfoo :: Double - Double - Charfoo = .g.f How about making . reverse
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:33 AM, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
Since there's talk of removal of the composition operator in
Haskell-prime,
how about this:
Instead of:
foo = f . g
you write:
foo = .g.f
A leading dot would mean, apply all unnamed parameters
to the function on the right. A
Thoughts?
Without considering the subtleties of the different meanings of . in
Haskell, I fail to see what people find so exciting about left to right
function composition. I find not . null much easier to read than null
not, let alone .null.not.
IMO, the following are good reasons for
On 9/28/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:33 AM, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
Since there's talk of removal of the composition operator in
Haskell-prime,
how about this:
Instead of:
foo = f . g
you write:
foo = .g.f
A leading dot would mean, apply
On 28/09/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the H' proposal
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/CompositionAsDot is an
extremely bad idea.
Hear, hear. Besides the fact that it's a proposal I disagree with
anyway, it would break _every single Haskell program ever_,
(.) :: a - (a - b) - b
x.f == f x
Looks like a parallel of (=).
Sounds interesting and useful, but why hijack dot? Would work nicely with
record gettor functions (but not the settors).
Greg
Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
___
Since there's talk of removal of the composition operator in Haskell-prime, how about this:
Instead of:foo = f . gyou write:foo = .g.fA leading dot would mean, apply all unnamed parameters to the function on the right. A trailing dot would mean, apply the result of the left to the function on the
Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
Since there's talk of removal of the composition operator in
Haskell-prime
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/CompositionAsDot,
how about this:
Instead of:
foo = f . g
you write:
foo = .g.f
A leading dot would mean, apply all unnamed parameters to the
Brandon Moore wrote:
Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
Since there's talk of removal of the composition operator in
Haskell-prime
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/CompositionAsDot,
how about this:
Instead of:
foo = f . g
you write:
foo = .g.f
A leading dot would mean, apply all
