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 KAA03651 for caml-redistribution; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:09:26 +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 UAA08123 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:51:33 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mail5.microsoft.com (mail5.microsoft.com [131.107.3.121])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12171
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:51:30 +0100 (MET)
Received: by INET-IMC-05 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
	id <Y3KJDDD6>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:51:30 -0800
Message-ID: <39ADCF833E74D111A2D700805F1951EF0B2EF6A6@RED-MSG-06>
From: Don Syme <dsyme@microsoft.com>
To: "'akay@sharp.co.uk'" <akay@sharp.co.uk>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: RE: Functional composition operator?
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:51:25 -0800 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Sender: weis


Yes, I chose the same operator, which seems very natural. 

Don

> > 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
> misunderstood.