Since e1 |> e2 is just another way of writing e2 e1, we don’t need to state the semantics for |>: it’s just the same as function application.
So, |> is the composition operator (or combinator).
Since e1 |> e2 is just another way of writing e2 e1, we don’t need to state the semantics for |>: it’s just the same as function application.
So, |> is the composition operator (or combinator).
The identity function
Aka the identity I combinator.
They are syntactically different but semantically equivalent.
In other words they have isomorphic function definitions as their resulting type signature is identical.