From ggrothend|eck @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Mon Dec  7 14:22:11 2020
From: ggrothend|eck @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:22:11 -0500
Subject: [Rd] New pipe operator
In-Reply-To: <7e28d84a-f6d0-1e18-c131-163650e7cd75@gmail.com>
References: <e55c2093-0bb5-5f9b-5521-0ca8bdf35953@gmail.com>
 <CALyqOb8c1hHOSaMV+fqXTwpeOsP--KJ_t-oeqMYYafVXeNpqZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7586e034-e287-0970-6480-f82d747b5445@gmail.com>
 <CADfFDC7bT58_+52uvmpHuMMQRNbbmqV3_7t_fc4sgJ_Esw=xag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJmOi+PO_8XDC23=rT=pQ76ENL=gx2V-41ax2fHSVs87xURcEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP01uRkkd3jOjvaS9JgKYCD1KA83HfzCd+MQSv_2aYJPgcOmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP01uRkPcbCBRGwAzKM=W19Ohh-zDGwZH8gM7=A-sK2rRaQxaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4oTHFBY4rBhiRsJUkA6jwD2YWaxPMz2OZDOqSvHfv6A7DZPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP01uRmTYna1nM+ugELHrCqLjfWuWwHSfE4cvqoaq2537sHpAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4oTHHFWkiirncPRWngY+_k9HcB=8zo7VdXAONXQoXdNhKzDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e28d84a-f6d0-1e18-c131-163650e7cd75@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP01uRkCpLQ0uwJgFdTFTNG+80C+F1hn=TnQqRS2Z-nFuU5MmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:41 AM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree it's all about call expressions, but they aren't all being
> treated equally:
>
> x |> f(...)
>
> expands to f(x, ...), while
>
> x |> `function`(...)
>
> expands to `function`(...)(x).  This is an exception to the rule for
> other calls, but I think it's a justified one.

This admitted inconsistency is justified by what?  No argument has been
presented.  The justification seems to be implicitly driven by implementation
concerns at the expense of usability and language consistency.



[Rd] New pipe operator
Gabor Grothendieck