Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

@Naveen: > If generator composition isn't directly supported somehow, then I'd have to > say I personally find the function composition proposal more compelling on > its own, even in the absence of a pipeline operator. That’s all right, Naveen; thank you for reading the explainer and/or spec

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

If generator composition isn't directly supported somehow, then I'd have to say I personally find the function composition proposal more compelling on its own, even in the absence of a pipeline operator. On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 at 05:56 Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11,

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Peter Jaszkowiak wrote: >>> optionally preceded by `new` or `await` >> >> This seems very arbitrary and _not_ forwards-compatible. > > I agree with arbitrary, tho

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

Thanks again for the reply, Peter. I’m a little confused by your latest questions, so I’ll try to clarify the questions at a time. > > [me] To clarify: The way that bare style and topic style are distinguished > > are not by the absence/presence of a topic reference. Bare style has a > >

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Peter Jaszkowiak wrote: >> To clarify: The way that bare style and topic style are distinguished are >> not by the absence/presence of a topic reference. Bare style has a simple >> and strict syntax: any identifiers, separated by `.`s,

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

> To clarify: The way that bare style and topic style are distinguished are not by the absence/presence of a topic reference. Bare style has a simple and strict syntax: any identifiers, separated by `.`s, optionally preceded by `new` or `await`. So `x['hello']` would not be valid? Seems pretty

Re: Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

Thanks for the feedback, Peter and Naveen. *** @Peter: > It looks like this is different to the existing pipeline proposal in > essentially only one way, in that it includes the # token (or lexical topic > as you call it). I like that the proposal addresses await and other unary > operators

Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

Can you explain how it solves the generator / async generator aspect of the proposal here: https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition I can't seem to find an example in the explainer. Maybe you can formulate a way of doing it, then add it in the

Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

It looks like this is different to the existing pipeline proposal in essentially only one way, in that it includes the `#` token (or lexical topic as you call it). I like that the proposal addresses `await` and other unary operators by default since it supports any expression on the right-hand

Re: Explainer/Spec: Smart pipelines

ESDiscuss.org stripped much of the formatting from my original message. To give the links in plain text: Readme explainer: https://github.com/js-choi/proposal-smart-pipelines/ Formal spec: https://jschoi.org/18/es-smart-pipelines/spec Issue tracker (please specify Proposal 4 in new issues):