(Extracted from the "Pipe Operator, take 2" thread) On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:54 AM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 5:30 PM, Olle Härstedt wrote: > > > Would a slimmed down version have more support? How about removing the > > variadic operator, and let the user manually add the lambda for those > > cases? > > I talked with Joe about this, and the answer is no. Most of the > complexity comes from the initial "this is a function call, oops no, it's a > partial call so we switch to doing that instead", which ends up interacting > with the engine in a lot of different places. > Are you saying that the implementation complexity is mainly due to chosing a syntax that looks like a function call? If yes, is it also the case for the "First-class callable syntax" RFC? And does it mean that a different syntax (e.g. with a prefix operator) would result in a simpler implementation? Regards, -- Guilliam Xavier
