Hacker News Reader

Comment by _9hey | Hacker News Reader

Why not use the haskell bind operator? They're similar, right?

People seem to find |> easier to learn.

There is a proposal[0] but I'm afraid it's pretty much dead now.

closer to compose (.) than bind.

  f .  g = \x -> f (g x)

  f |> g = \x -> g (f x)

I think `|>` would actually be `&` in Haskell, it takes a value and a function.

`(&) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b`

It's

    flip ($)

import Data.Function (&)

Haskell already has the function application operator, It's simply & in Haskell.