On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 10:16:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 07:46:08 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
If | effectively does the same as . (at least that's the
impression I get, maybe I'm totally wrong), what benefit does
it give other than confusing or obfuscating code?
It doesn't confuse or obfuscate code, on the contrary, it
brings clarity and makes the code more legible.
You know, i remember that in C there was a dereferencing symbol,
it was ->, and that was thrown out for UFCS as well as simplicity.
c->x and c.x were basically the same. Why not use -> instead of
| ?
That would be fun wouldn't it. To borrow from w0rp's post
earlier as I don't do this much.
x.map!(...).filter!(...).reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)|filter!(...)|reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)->filter!(...)->reduce!(...)
Honestly looking at them side by side, I don't like |, -> is
almost preferable except I sometimes don't hit the > and have to
re-edit it, unlike using ., but that's a minor gripe there.
Hell why not extend to the rest of the operators? Don't forget
C++'s iostream pushes using very specific low level operations to
do weird things.
x.map!(...)>>filter!(...)>>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)<<filter!(...)<<reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)^filter!(...)^reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)-filter!(...)-reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)+filter!(...)+reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)&filter!(...)&reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)*filter!(...)*reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)!filter!(...)!reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)~filter!(...)~reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)%filter!(...)%reduce!(...)
Why stop there?
x.map!(...)&&filter!(...)&&reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)||filter!(...)||reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)::filter!(...)::reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)=>filter!(...)=>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)++filter!(...)++reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)--filter!(...)--reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)<=>filter!(...)<=>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)<>filter!(...)<>reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)>=<filter!(...)>=<reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)><filter!(...)><reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)!!filter!(...)!!reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)~~filter!(...)~~reduce!(...)
x.map!(...)%%filter!(...)%%reduce!(...)
I still stand by that _unless_ it shows it really improves it
somehow, or adds something vital that it shouldn't be there.
