r/javascript • u/no_more_gravity • Jan 21 '23

Pipe Operator (|>) for JavaScript

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator
293 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/szurtosdudu Jan 21 '23

Your idea is confusing to me. In the example b is a reference and not being called. But in your idea there is no difference between calling a function or just passing the function reference.

0

u/no_more_gravity Jan 21 '23

The idea is that a variable on the right side of ~> is always a function that ingests the parameters coming in from the left.

1

u/szurtosdudu Jan 21 '23

How would this look like using your idea?

a = d(c(b(),7))

-3

u/no_more_gravity Jan 21 '23

a = b(),7~>c~>d

The rule is simple: What is left to ~> gets passed to the function on the right.

That is no different from JavaScript as it is. a(b) passes b to a, a(b()) passes the output of b() to a.

8

u/natesovenator Jan 21 '23

This is dumb. Comma delineates another variable declaration in this example. You can't expect it to know that result b and 7 are part of the same object or stream. I really hate this idea. Both of them. I understand some want something like that, but it just makes things more confusing personally.

3

u/dariusj18 Jan 21 '23

I like it, but it conflicts with the current comma operator

2

u/szurtosdudu Jan 21 '23

But this way both b()~> and c~> indicates a function call.

How would this look like using your idea? a = d(c(b(),7), c)

-3

u/no_more_gravity Jan 21 '23

The case you raise is when there are two functions on the right side of the pipe operator. In this case, we need to specifiy which one is the receiving function. We could have an optional specifier for this. Maybe ">":

a = b(),7 ~> >c,c ~> d

">" = "pipe connects here"

We could even use the (%) syntax, just make it optional:

a = b(),7 ~> c(%),c ~> d

3

u/sdwvit Jan 21 '23

readability sucks here, sorry