Is this a useful way to describe function composition?
Conversation
I hate the math syntax but the shape transformations seem fine
1
1
I'm trying to make the notation more relatable.
1
1
I'm not sure the issue with the notation is that folks don't understand it (I mean certainly until it's explained at least once they don't but beyond that)
I think the problem is that it's just bad notation. It's arcane and non-descriptive
4
3
I agree that the syntax is faulty. It forces you to read right to left to get the functions step by step. (also why does Haskell have a >>= but not a |> by default?)
4
1
Or a function composition operator that goes the other way (sorry my F# is really rusty, I was thinking of >> I think)
1
1
Yeah, F#'s `_<|_`, `_|>_`, `_<<_`, and `_>>_` operators are _so_ much nicer and easier to remember than Haskell's mix of `_$_`, `_&_`, `_._`/`_<<<_`, `_>>>_`! Wish more languages would learn from it!