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 SAA08411 for caml-redistribution; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 18:10:01 +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 RAA29178 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:17:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from post.tepkom.ru (relay.tepkom.ru [195.9.240.162]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10261 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:17:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (msk@localhost) by post.tepkom.ru (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA19040; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:17:23 +0300 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:17:23 +0300 (MSK) From: Anton Moscal To: Andrew Kay cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: Functional composition operator? In-Reply-To: <199812081808.SAA01875@byrd.sharp.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: weis On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Andrew Kay wrote: > From: John Whitley > > 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 In camlp4 << and >> are used as quotes for invocation of quotation expander. Your proposals will interfere with camlp4. I propose <<< and >>> (this also leads to problem with camlp4, but this issue can be solved). Regards, Anton