From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA05913 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:02:34 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA05767 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 06:24:03 +0100 (MET)
Received: from hadar.cs.Buffalo.EDU (hadar.cs.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.1])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA28324
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 06:24:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from whitley@localhost)
	by hadar.cs.Buffalo.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.5) id AAA05357;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:24:00 -0500 (EST)
From: John Whitley <whitley@cse.buffalo.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue,  8 Dec 1998 00:23:59 -0500 (EST)
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Functional composition operator?
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Message-ID: <13932.45585.522844.651609@hadar.cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: weis


Andrew Kay <akay@sharp.co.uk> wrote, in the caml-list archives:
 > We are in the process of converting our Caml code into OCaml, and
 > have a problem choosing an infix syntax for function composition
 > [...] What do other OCaml people use for function composition? Is
 > there standard emerging?

I found no answer in the archives, so I'd like to raise the same
question again: is there a consensus for choice of infix composition
operator?  Failing that, is there some design principle that warranted
its omission?

Thanks,
John Whitley