3 ms·

I love |> in f# because of this type of thing, piping operations together instead of nesting or the like just reads so much cleaner. And yes in cases where they

I love |> in f# because of this type of thing, piping operations together instead of nesting or the like just reads so much cleaner. And yes in cases where they are all methods on the type you can have the function return self and then do value.Func1().func2().func3().etc() but only if they are methods on the class. But I also don't care for arbitrary infix operators (which I'm pretty sure f# supports but I haven't used it in a way where I run into them). I know I'm crazy but I almost wish we did away with ALL infix operators, even stuff like +/-* and just do everything as functions. You know, like Lisp :P Edit: I guess I should clarify as it sounds back and forth. For traditional stuff everything functions, with exceptions for things like piping that are purely about chaining operations together (both |> and >> in f# are examples of infix that's specific use case is different enough from say +-/* I think they warrant it).

eyegor 5y ago
F# does allow custom infix operators, but of course prefix + piping is generally cleaner. Only time I've used custom infix are for implementing a "null coalesce" operator and for overloading math ops for vectors and matrices. The null coalescing is generally only used for code that interops with c# since f# offers non null guarantees for most types.
- runevault 5y ago
  I can see wanting null coalesce in interop scenarios. I know I use it a lot in C#.
ziml77 5y ago
> but only if they are methods on the class C# got around this by introducing extension methods. You put static methods inside any static class whose namespace you've imported and label the first parameter with `this` before the type name. Then you're able to call that static method as if it was an instance method on anything that is or implements the type of the first parameter. Basically it's an explicit version of D's unified function call syntax. I think the pipeline operator is nicer, but extension methods aren't a bad solution.
- runevault 5y ago
  Sure, you can fake it to get to the same place. And I've abused extension methods a lot, including on interfaces before c# made default implementations on interfaces a more acceptable thing with c#... 9 I think?

eyegor 5y ago

F# does allow custom infix operators, but of course prefix + piping is generally cleaner. Only time I've used custom infix are for implementing a "null coalesce" operator and for overloading math ops for vectors and matrices. The null coalescing is generally only used for code that interops with c# since f# offers non null guarantees for most types.

runevault 5y ago
I can see wanting null coalesce in interop scenarios. I know I use it a lot in C#.

ziml77 5y ago

> but only if they are methods on the class C# got around this by introducing extension methods. You put static methods inside any static class whose namespace you've imported and label the first parameter with `this` before the type name. Then you're able to call that static method as if it was an instance method on anything that is or implements the type of the first parameter. Basically it's an explicit version of D's unified function call syntax. I think the pipeline operator is nicer, but extension methods aren't a bad solution.

runevault 5y ago
Sure, you can fake it to get to the same place. And I've abused extension methods a lot, including on interfaces before c# made default implementations on interfaces a more acceptable thing with c#... 9 I think?