From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fabrice.marchant@orange.fr>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247D6BC6B
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:35:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAANJJ7kbAXQImk2dsb2JhbACBWIw9AgcEBgcg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,265,1186351200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1317865"
Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 17 Sep 2007 18:36:14 +0200
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8HGZedY020803
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK)
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:35:40 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAANJJ7kZQDPIakGdsb2JhbACBWIw9AgcCCA8RBQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,265,1186351200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="16323762"
Received: from smtp20.orange.fr ([80.12.242.26])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 17 Sep 2007 18:36:13 +0200
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mwinf2027.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 151A91C000C2
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:36:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (Mix-Lyon-303-4-243.w193-248.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.248.106.243])
	by mwinf2027.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 71B8C1C000C0
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:36:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-ME-UUID: 20070917163612465.71B8C1C000C0@mwinf2027.orange.fr
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:36:17 +0200
From: Fabrice Marchant <fabrice.marchant@orange.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Having '<<', why to use '|>' ?
Message-ID: <20070917163617.0e6e0e7c@localhost.localdomain>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.10.0 (GTK+ 2.10.13; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46EEACDC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; functions:01 functions:01 let:03 let:03 exists:05 fabrice:08 fabrice:08 fun:08 n'a:12 writing:12 supersede:13 usually:13 case:13 wonder:14 does:14 

 Hello !

For f1 and f2 composable functions, writing :   

let ( << ) f g x = f (g x)

let g1 = f2 << f1

let ( |> ) x f = f x

let g2 = fun x ->
               x
            |> f1
            |> f2  

I usually use '<<' and wonder if we can always supersede '|>' by this operator ?
g1 and g2 are same functions ( not true ? ).
Does it exists a case where the use of '|>' is better ?

Thanks,

 Fabrice
-----------------------------------
Force est de constater que mon post sur Lucky et Camel n'a pas fait un tabac...