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
>>
>
>