Alex Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Manuel Chakravarty and Olaf Chitil debate the fixity of ($):
>
> > > I think the idea behind $ is exactly the change of
> > > associativity.
> >
> > Hmm, I thought, the idea behind it is a change of precedence...
> >
> > > I use $ a lot to save a lot
Manuel Chakravarty and Olaf Chitil debate the fixity of ($):
> > I think the idea behind $ is exactly the change of
> > associativity.
>
> Hmm, I thought, the idea behind it is a change of precedence...
>
> > I use $ a lot to save a lot of brackets. I very much prefer
> >
> > f $ g $ h $ i $
Hi Olaf,
Olaf Chitil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> >
> > Is there any good reason for the standard prelude defining
> >
> > infixr 0 $, $!, `seq`
> >
> > ie, making $ and $! right associative?
> ...
> > I'd rather prefer
> >
> > f $ x $ y = (f $ x) $
Is there any good reason for the standard prelude defining
infixr 0 $, $!, `seq`
ie, making $ and $! right associative? I understand that
for `seq`, we like
x `seq` y `seq` z = x `seq` (y `seq` z)
but why
f $ x $ y = f $ (x $ y)
I'd rather prefer
f $ x $ y = (f $ x) $ y
ie,
Hi Manuel,
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
>
> Is there any good reason for the standard prelude defining
>
> infixr 0 $, $!, `seq`
>
> ie, making $ and $! right associative?
...
> I'd rather prefer
>
> f $ x $ y = (f $ x) $ y
>
> ie, ($) is like application by juxtaposition, but
