I definitely agree that we need a standardized composition operator. It's
so much nicer to have one in the standard library rather than having to
define our own. I personally use |- but I would be open to anything of
equal length.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, octachron <octa@polychoron.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
> If you just want a short notation for (fun x -> x |> f |> g |> ...),
> why not simply define a composition operator?
>
> With
> let (->-) f g x =  x |> f |> g;;
> you can rewrite the previous expression as f ->- g ->- h ...
> I personally don't think that there is any need for a special syntax here.
>
> At the same time, it could be nice if there was a standardized name for
> composition operators.
>
> —octachron.
>
> Le 10/10/15 15:52, Nils Becker a écrit :
>
> hi,
>>
>> just an idea for a short notation which might be appealing:
>>
>> (|> f |> g |> ... ) as abbreviation for (fun x -> x |> f |> g |> ...)
>>
>> (|> f) would be just f.
>>
>> in other words a it's function composition using |> . it looks intuitive
>> to me. but of course it could be a bad idea for a lot of reasons.
>>
>> n,
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>