Closed phadej closed 1 year ago
@phadej, I like this idea. What about calling the operator %_
(or _%
)? And then for the <+>
idea we could use <_>
?
_
is not an operator character
ping
Sorry about being slow on this. I've just pushed this change, after which I rename (%%)
to (%+)
and add (<%+>)
. Is the latter a good name, do you think? I wonder whether I should add (<%>)
as another name for (<>)
to keep the naming consistency...
If you are unsure, then better to not add new combinators. They can be added later if it feels like so, removing OTOH is a breaking change.
Related idea is to have
<+>
operator to do the same thing for<>
. Thencould be written as
if so, maybe
%%
should be named%+
.