3 ms·

For maximum readability I'd be tempted to write the lambdas explicitly. xs = 5 & (\n -> take n [1, 2, 3]) & filter (/= 1) & head

• eru 6y ago
  That might be a wise choice. It depends on what you are used to and your tolerance thresholds. In a code base I worked on professionally, I came across the following idiom f a b `flip` d which at first used to confuse me to no end. Later I figured out that you are supposed to read it as: f a b <place-holder> d and thus \c -> f a b c d In the same vein that Scala uses an underscore in somewhat implicit anonymous function syntax. I still wasn't really happy with that usage, but at least I see why someone thought it would make sense. (Mostly I wasn't so happy because it only works for the penultimate argument. If the syntax had worked out so that f a `flip` c d would mean \b -> f a b c d I would have been more amenable to the idiom. But you need the ugly f a `flip` c `flip` d for that case. And that's clearly worse than the lambda syntax.
  • johnday 6y ago
    Oh good lord, that's horrible!