Sebastian Sylvan wrote: >Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be >"wasted" on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use >function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use >($) way more often than (.). Some people do use it more often than I
Function composition is a very important and fundamental operation on functions, and I use it all the time. Haskell is supposed to be a functional language. I'd vote against any motion to make it less convenient. Of course, it really shouldn't be (.) but a small circle centred on the line, which isn't on ordinary keyboards. (°) looks closer, but is much less convenient to type. (I need to type "<Compose> 0 ^" in order to get that character.) Spelling it as (.) really is the best easy-to-type approximation. - Cale _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe