Pipeline Champions on 2022-07-09

02:38	<TabAtkins>	Every time someone says "non-function use-cases are contrived" I look back at all the times I've gone "fuck, I wish I had pipeline right now, this is kinda annoying to write" and how they're a pretty substantial mix of functions and operators and just go.... really?
02:39	<TabAtkins>	I fundamentally do not understand how this assertion can be made when I know for a fact how many times I, personally, want non-functions.
02:42	<TabAtkins>	personally i have a bunch of examples that would work equally well in either style, and a bunch of examples where hack avoids creating a bunch of extra arrow functions, and close to zero examples (but nonzero) where F# is simpler Yes, this is my experience precisely. I often want to pipe into functions (sometimes unary, sometimes not; PFA would address the latter cases), but I also often want to linearize other things (mostly math stuff, calling methods on something complex, and of course `await` every. single. fucking. time).
17:04	<Richard Gibson>	I frequently want to construct e.g. a Map or Set, which currently requires `new` (as in `… \|> (entries => new Map(entries))` if tacit/point-free or `… \|> (new Map(^))` if not)
17:24	<jschoi>	Did we ever consider `` as a topic token? `f() \|> g({ x: })`. I don’t remember why `*` was disqualified, if it was at all. (Otherwise, the top runner is `^^`, given `@`’s recent problems found by WH.)
17:24	<jschoi>	Is it because of `yield `? (This is such a rare case that we could require it to be `yield ()`.)
17:27	<jschoi>	Or maybe it’s because of ``…`f() \|> g(2)` is terrible but we would probably require separation between topic `` and binary ``/`**` anyway, just from the tokenization perspective. I probably wouldn’t be a big deal to make people use a space to disambiguate the tokenization here.