On 2005-11-17 at 13:21EST Cale Gibbard wrote: > 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.
Hear hear. > 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. Ought to be ∘, unicode 0x2218, but without defining some keyboard macros, that's even harder to type. On the other hand, I could define ctrl-. as (ucs-insert "2218"), and then it would be no harder to type than >. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
