3 ms·
Why not just get a “pipe” operator added to the language instead? Many functional programming languages already have one. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotn
by EdSchouten 5y ago
Why not just get a “pipe” operator added to the language instead? Many functional programming languages already have one.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/functions/#pipelines https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-refe...
No need to alter the type system of the language, while it’s clearly a syntactical improvement you’re looking for.
- jen20 5y agoI (sadly) can't imagine that getting through the language modification process, somehow, though it certainly would solve this particular problem! If we're looking for things that Go could usefully take from functional languages I'd personally start with the much lower-hanging fruit of some guarantees about mutability of structures, though. (ps: Hi, Ed!)