On 2003-07-17 at 09:08+0200 Johannes Waldmann wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, K. Fritz Ruehr wrote: > > > I think the cutest way to get what you want here is to define a new > ^^^^^^ > > operator as follows: > > > > (.<) = (.) . (.) > > Indeed this is cute - but let me add a general comment here: > in my code, I don't define any operators at all (only functions). > I do think that self-defined operators make a programm less readable.
While I agree with that, I think that the language needs "user"-defined operators for libraries; it's a matter of defining them rarely and getting them widely accepted. I'm even tempted to suggest that the language ought to restrict their use to gurus. Someone mentioned multiplying by a scalar. I think this is a good application, but what we need is to agree (somehow) on the symbol used. I've used (*.) and (.*), with the dot being on the side the scalar is on (on the grounds that . is a scalar product elsewhere), but without wide agreement I agree that this sort of thing reduces readability, because while I can read these programmes, it's harder for everyone else. Jón -- Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell