Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since > (a . b) x > a $ b x > a (b x) > > are equivalent, do you also want to reverse function and > argument in order to match argument order of . and $ ? > > That is > x (b . a) > x b $ a > (x b) a > ?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether one should be allowed to write x f instead of f x? I don't think anyone is advocating this, but is can be convenient to have an infix operator for this purpose. Chad Scherrer Computational Mathematics Group Pacific Northwest National Laboratory "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." -- Groucho Marx _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
