> To me, the most natural syntax looks like this: > value | function *args, **kwargs > equivalent to `function(value, *args, **kwargs)` but of course we've > already used the pipe for bitwise-or and set intersection. `>>` would be > another equally good operator. I don't really like `|>` as an operator. > If we were to invent a new operator, I'd prefer `->`. This syntactic sugar imo is powerful because it's not limited to iterables but generalises to possibly any object. But I guess since method chaining (for collection pipeline) is more commonplace across many languages, it might be easier to catch on.
> We can experiment by providing a wrapper class that takes a function, > method or other callable and gives them a `__ror__` method for the pipe, > and a `.p` (for partial) method for the partial application: > value | Wrapper(function).p(*args, **kwargs) > --> partial(function, *args, **kwargs)(value) > That's sufficient for experimentation, but needing that wrapper adds too > much friction. Ultimately nobody is going to use this idiom to its full > potential until it works with arbitrary functions and callables without > the wrapper. I also agree that using this wrapper might be too much friction. I think this would be similar to Simple Smart Pipe (https://github.com/sspipe/sspipe). > I would be willing to help design an API and write a PEP but I would > *not* champion it for 3.11. Awesome, Steven 😊 _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/HCD457RTAWZM5E7DXNZ7ZQVZA6ZVPJWC/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
