61–70 of 360 posts
C# has had "Pipelining" (aka Linq) for 17 years. I do miss this kind of stuff in Go a little.
It is an exemplar of expressions [0] more than anything else, which have little to do with the idea of passing results from one method to another.
[0]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-ref...
I'm personally someone who advocates for languages to keep their feature set small and shoot to achieve a finished feature set quickly. However. I would be lying if I didn't secretly wish that all languages adopted the `|>` syntax from Elixir. ``` params |> Map.get("user") |> create_user() |> notify_admin() ```
We might be able to cross one more language off your wishlist soon, Javascript is on the way to getting a pipeline operator, the proposal is currently at Stage 2 https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator I'm very excited for it.
It seems like most people are just asking for the simple function piping everyone expects from the |> syntax, but that doesn't look likely to happen.
Am I the only one who thinks yuck? Instead of writing: a().b().c().d(), it's much nicer to write: d(c(b(a()))), or perhaps (d ∘ c ∘ b ∘ a)().
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but here's my hot take - what if you didn't have to edit the source code to debug it? Instead of chaining method calls you just assign to a temporary variable. Then you can set breakpoints and inspect variable values like you do normally without editing source. It's not like you lose that much readability from foo(bar(baz(c))) c |> baz |> bar |> foo c.baz().bar().foo() t = c.baz() t = t.bar() t = t.foo()
I feel like a sufficiently good debugger should allow you to place a breakpoint at any of the lines here, and it should break exactly at that specific line. fn get_ids(data: Vec ) -> Vec { data.iter() .filter(|w| w.alive) .map(|w| w.id) .collect() } It sounds to me like you're asking for linebreaks. Chaining doesn't seem to be the issue here.
Am I the only one who thinks yuck? Instead of writing: a().b().c().d(), it's much nicer to write: d(c(b(a()))), or perhaps (d ∘ c ∘ b ∘ a)().
Clojure has pipeline functions -> and ->> without resorting to OO dot syntax.
I tried to convince the julia authors to make a.b(c) synonymous to b(a,c) like in nim (for similar reasons as in the article). They didn't like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like a sufficiently good debugger should allow you to place a breakpoint at any of the lines here, and it should break exactly at that specific line. fn get_ids(data: Vec ) -> Vec { data.iter() .filter(|w| w.alive) .map(|w| w.id) .collect() } It sounds to me like you're asking for linebreaks. Chaining doesn't seem to be the issue here.
I'm only familiar with C++, Python, and SQL. Neither GDB nor PDB helps here, and I've never heard of a SQL debugger that will break apart expressions and let you view intermediate query results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like a sufficiently good debugger should allow you to place a breakpoint at any of the lines here, and it should break exactly at that specific line. fn get_ids(data: Vec ) -> Vec { data.iter() .filter(|w| w.alive) .map(|w| w.id) .collect() } It sounds to me like you're asking for linebreaks. Chaining doesn't seem to be the issue here.
I'm only familiar with C++, Python, and SQL. Neither GDB nor PDB helps here, and I've never heard of a SQL debugger that will break apart expressions and let you view intermediate query results.
A
.B
.C
|| D
|| E