On 9 May 2016 at 07:37, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > "|>" is just a building block for simpler coding. It could be used > badly, but > > it helps a lot. Procedural code could be much simpler and readable with > "|>". > > I don't see how it helps anything. It just replaces clear variable names > with cryptic sequences of characters with no intuitive meaning and magic > semantics invented solely to save a few keystrokes. Moreover, it would > only in one sole use case where functions always return a value that is > immediately passed to the next one and is sole argument for it, and > never produce errors or require any logic beyond calling them in a > sequence on one value. > > That seems to be a misrepresentation of the proposal - the $$ is needed *because* there might be other parameters. As for sole use case - there are many pieces of code that manipulate the return values of functions, step by step. > > "|>" version is much easier to read and write. > > Quite the opposite. It has completely unobvious syntax (what is $$? What > is the value of $$? how I see this value if I need to debug this code?) > and does not allow to do anything but making code more cryptic. > I have the feeling that if everyone involved *explicitly* prefixed their opinions with "I think that", this would be a better and more fruitful discussion. *You* think the syntax completely unobvious - that doesn't make it so. Clearly others find it much easier to read. Regards Peter -- CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15
