I agree with Greg here, this is clearer: x |> then(&if(pred(&1), do: f(&1), else: &1))
> your suggestion only implies what happens if `pred` is falsy while mine is clear. The appeal of the proposed mechanism is its terseness, which mostly comes from this implicit *else*. My three points against: - I'm a fan of explicitness in general in the core language. - We *already* have an idiom for what implicit *else*s return in the language—and that's *nil*, not *&1*. This mechanism violates that expectation. - Additionally, eventually someone will want to override the default with a custom *else: &capture/1* clause, at which point we're right back to capturing *if* but using three anonymous functions instead of one. On Saturday, August 3, 2024 at 5:09:10 PM UTC-5 gva...@gmail.com wrote: > You can already capture the `if` and do it as a one-liner > > x |> then(&if(pred(&1), do: f(&1), else: &1)) > > so you don't gain much yet add more complexity. Additionally, your > suggestion only implies what happens if `pred` is falsy while mine is clear. > > -Greg Vaughn > > > On Aug 3, 2024, at 4:16 PM, Caio Oliveira <cai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > x > > |> then(fn val -> > > if pred(&1) do > > f(val) > > else > > val > > end) > > > > Into this: > > > > x |> then(&f/1, if: &pred/1) > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/fe354ed6-399c-4d24-931b-69f212530204n%40googlegroups.com.
