From: Don Syme <email@example.com>
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: Functional composition operator?
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:51:25 -0800
Yes, I chose the same operator, which seems very natural.
> > is there a consensus for choice of infix composition operator?
> In the end we settled on >> and << for forward and reverse
> composition respectively, satisfying the equations:
> (f << g) x = f (g x) = (g >> f) x
> The chevrons give a nice feeling of a data pipeline running from g
> to f in each case. Since composition is associative (in the absence
> of side effects) we can write (f << g << h << i), which is
> more elegant
> than (compose (compose (compose f g) h) i), without fear of being
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:17 MET