3 ms·

It feels a bit unnatural to pipe multiple arguments like that in JS, and you could inline them in the first call without losing legibility: a = c(b, 7) |>

It feels a bit unnatural to pipe multiple arguments like that in JS, and you could inline them in the first call without losing legibility: a = c(b, 7) |> d(%) It's the arguments added way down the line that are problematic: a = f((e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) a = ((b ~> c ~> d), 4 ~> e), 5 ~> f a = b |> c(%) |> d(%) |> e(%, 4) |> f(%, 5) Smart pipes [1] were a bit nicer about that: a = b |> c |> d |> e(#, 4) |> f(#, 5) Basically you would use # token whenever you wanted an expression and just a function name when you needed to pass a single argument. Best of both worlds IMO. Perhaps it could even be extended for Curry-ish function syntax (although it isn't as obvious): a = b |> c(7) |> d a = d(c(7, b)) Too bad it was withdrawn. [1]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-smart-pipelines https://github.com/tc39/proposal-smart-pipelines P. S. When studying Haskell on a CS course in school, I used to define exactly the same squiggly arrow operator for my programs :-) x ~> f = f x

notpushkin 3y ago
Aside, but there's another kind of syntax possible here: const result = ( await fetch(url) .json() ::Object.keys .map(key => ...) ::new ByteArray );
oispakaljaa 3y ago
> P. S. When studying Haskell on a CS course in school, I used to define exactly the same squiggly arrow operator for my programs :-) Haskell base already has the reverse application operator (&) which does the same thing. Not included in the prelude but can be imported from Data.Function. [1] It's defined as: (&) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b x & f = f x Not that there's anything wrong with using your own definitions, just thought I'd point it out! [1] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.18.1.0/docs/Data-Function.html#v:-38- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.18.1.0/docs/Data-...
mg 3y ago
This: a = f((e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) Seems not to make sense. Replacing c(b) with x we get: a = f((e(d(x)), 4), 5) Replacing d(x) with x we get: a = f((e(x), 4), 5) Replacing e(x) with x we get: a = f((x, 4), 5) What is that?
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Sorry, messed up parens here. It should have been: a = f(e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) b is passed to c, then the result is passed to d, then to e along with 4 as a second parameter, and finally to f along with 5.
  - mg 3y ago
    a = f(e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) That has 4 opening parenthesis and 5 closing parenthesis. b is passed to c b ~> c then the result is passed to d b ~> c ~> d then to e along with 4 as a second parameter b ~> c ~> d,4 ~> e and finally to f along with 5 b ~> c ~> d,4 ~> e,5 ~> f
    - notpushkin 3y ago
      b ~> c ~> d,4 ~> e This reads as b ~> c ~> (d, 4) ~> e to me. Sure, you can get used to it, but it’s pretty unnatural. Is this syntax used in any other languages?
      - mg 3y ago
        The nice aspect of "this ~> that" is that the meaning is simply "put this into that". And that it results in the shortest code. An alternative would be: b ~> c ~> d ~> e(%,4) Slightly longer, but maybe easier to read. Also easier to handle, as you can remove the fourth part " ~> e(%,4)" without having to change the third part.

notpushkin 3y ago

Aside, but there's another kind of syntax possible here: const result = ( await fetch(url) .json() ::Object.keys .map(key => ...) ::new ByteArray );

oispakaljaa 3y ago

> P. S. When studying Haskell on a CS course in school, I used to define exactly the same squiggly arrow operator for my programs :-) Haskell base already has the reverse application operator (&) which does the same thing. Not included in the prelude but can be imported from Data.Function. [1] It's defined as: (&) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b x & f = f x Not that there's anything wrong with using your own definitions, just thought I'd point it out! [1] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.18.1.0/docs/Data-Function.html#v:-38- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.18.1.0/docs/Data-...

mg 3y ago

This: a = f((e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) Seems not to make sense. Replacing c(b) with x we get: a = f((e(d(x)), 4), 5) Replacing d(x) with x we get: a = f((e(x), 4), 5) Replacing e(x) with x we get: a = f((x, 4), 5) What is that?

notpushkin 3y ago
Sorry, messed up parens here. It should have been: a = f(e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) b is passed to c, then the result is passed to d, then to e along with 4 as a second parameter, and finally to f along with 5.
- mg 3y ago
  a = f(e(d(c(b))), 4), 5) That has 4 opening parenthesis and 5 closing parenthesis. b is passed to c b ~> c then the result is passed to d b ~> c ~> d then to e along with 4 as a second parameter b ~> c ~> d,4 ~> e and finally to f along with 5 b ~> c ~> d,4 ~> e,5 ~> f
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    b ~> c ~> d,4 ~> e This reads as b ~> c ~> (d, 4) ~> e to me. Sure, you can get used to it, but it’s pretty unnatural. Is this syntax used in any other languages?
    - mg 3y ago
      The nice aspect of "this ~> that" is that the meaning is simply "put this into that". And that it results in the shortest code. An alternative would be: b ~> c ~> d ~> e(%,4) Slightly longer, but maybe easier to read. Also easier to handle, as you can remove the fourth part " ~> e(%,4)" without having to change the third part.