Interesting, but seems like overkill to me personally. I'm ok with @@ and |> (which already breaks F#'s convention, since @@ would be <| in F#. What's the reason we went with @@ instead again?). Function composition is potentially more confusing, and I think keeping it with a consistent associativity direction (that being the direction of normal function application from right to left) has value. So I'm personally sort-of ok with <<, but once you suggest something as beautifully concise as o, I'm overwhelmed by the convenience factor.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
F# defines composition operators >> and <<:

http://theburningmonk.com/2011/09/fsharp-pipe-forward-and-pipe-backward/

martin

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Nils Becker <nils.becker@bioquant.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
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