2014-03-19 7:06 GMT+01:00 Denis Trapeznikoff <denin@x
> Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:02:52 +0100 от Panicz Maciej Godek
> > I think that there's a nice tradition among the Scheme programmers to
> > use the name "compose" to refer to a composition function. It is much
> > more descriptive than "dollar-asterisk" ("multiply dollars"? "a
> > millionare marries a star"? "jackpot"?), and hence more
> > reader-friendly, and unless you are doing some domain-specific
> > research, your programs usually won't get much longer because of that.
> Yes (and I did so, too, at start), but `compose' is too long a word (compare
> it to Haskell's `.').
Haskell is a very nice language, but -- compared to Scheme -- it
conveys a lot of information in its complex syntax. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but I don't think that it would allow you to define the "."
operator if it wasn't already in the language.