Conversation

Another thing to look out for - any time someone uses @@ in OCaml, that's a sign that they really would have preferred the paren style calling concrete syntax. It achieves the same precedence.

is `@@` like `(<|)` and `($)` in Elm/Haskell respectively?

I think so.

Pretty convinced that `(<|)`, `(|>)`, `(<<)`, `(>>)` is the way to go for application and composition operators now, thanks to F# and Elm. Makes things a ton clearer for folks than `@@` and `(.)`/`($)`, which provide no directional hint to people.

jordwalke

@jordwalke

I do agree, in an OCaml/ML style syntax. For Reason v3, <| is no longer needed I think. |> is still useful.

That kind of hints at an assymmetry in the design though? Would have been interesting to see if histories diverged if `(<|)` was available, or if the more readable reverse composition operator, `(|>)`, was preferred over `(@@)`.

jordwalke

@jordwalke

Either way, it's nowhere nears as familiar as x(y, z). Many developers even have a visceral reaction to snake_case not being camelCase. Imagine how much more adverse the response would be to an ML syntax full of <| |>. I just make the observations here.

Hey, just want to say, sorry for my strong comments, they were a little heated in hindsight, and it was kind of a silly of me. Thanks for all the work you are doing, you're doing a great job for all of us, and it's important to make tricky choices along the way!