Use (<>) instead of (&) in documentation

[Gabriella439]

This kind of an issue of style, but I think it would be less confusing if you changed the documentation to use (<>) instead of (&). That's one less combinator to learn, and it also makes it more obvious to users that options are monoids, so that they know they can use other monoid combinators like mconcat to collect options.

You don't really need to remove the (&) combinator if you are worried about backwards compatibility, although my understanding is that the libraries mailing list has been discussing appropriating (&) for postfix function application.

[dag]

The reason & is even there is that option modifiers used to be a Category, with & as an alias for >>>. It's not really needed any more since <> is nice enough itself and doesn't conflict with anything in the Prelude, so it's only kept for backwards compatibility I think. On the other hand, it is trivial to port code to use <> instead, so maybe & should go?

:%s/ &\b/<>/g

[UnkindPartition]

& is still mentioned in the Options.Applicative.Builder module documentation.