This would all be so much easier if we had custom infix operations beyond the unicode ones.
Just a thought, but what if |> were tweaked to have a ternary form |> (), so that a|>f(b) automatically gets interpreted as f(a,b)? If you had a function that outputs a function (say, f(j)=i->i^2+j^2), then to use the output function, you would use brackets to fix it... a|>(f(b)) would evaluate as a|>(i->i^2+b^2), in this case. Then you'd have man|>eat(food), and you'd have 10|>mod(7), and A|>fill!(1), and other such instructions. On Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:06:27 UTC+10, Jonathan Malmaud wrote: > > You could also use pipelining: man |> _->eat(_, food). There's been talk > of having "pronoun" syntactic sugar to let you write that as > man |> eat(_, food) or perhaps taking it even further and assuming the > first argument is the pronoun recipient, yielding > man |> eat(food) > > I personally favor a solution along these lines since it doesn't hide > multiple dispatch but still gives you the svo order which many find more > natural in certain domains. >
