explicitly close implicit calls

[aeosynth]

eg f a ^^ b -> f(a)(b). i'm not method chaining

currently, i have to write f(a) b, (f a) b

[vendethiel]

we may use <| to reflect wirh |>

[satyr]

Current paren-free (but ugly) solutions are:

• f a .call null b
• f a |>& b

use <|

How'd that help?

[vendethiel]

a b <| c => a(b) c

[satyr]

That's hardly a reverse of |>; doesn't make sense.

[vendethiel]

indeed, we can't use $ etc

[satyr]

F♯ you mean?

Another solution:

Function::$ = -> @apply null, arguments

f a .$ b

which imitates Haskell's $.

[michaelficarra]

Huh, that's neat.

[vendethiel]

F♯ you mean?

thanks - had trouble remembering where it was from

which imitates Haskell's $.

indeed, but -- that's horrendously slow :/.

[satyr]

And another:

Function::<<<_:~->@

f a ._ b

Workarounds aside, I guess we can add it if we can find an intuitive symbol for it. The proposed ^^ doesn't feel quite right.

[vendethiel]

EDIT : removed the part where I'm dumb.

any suggest ?

[qqueue]

f a >< b

sort of looks like the middle parentheses of

( f a )( b )

if you squint.

[aeosynth]

f a |>& b doesn't help if i want to store the final result:

$ coco -bce 'c = f a |>& b'
var x0$, c;
x0$ = c = f(a);
x0$(b);

not sure if this is a bug

[vendethiel]

no, that's how refs work

[michaelficarra]

Why aren't we just stealing LiveScript's <|?

a b <| c

[vendethiel]

That's hardly a reverse of |>; doesn't make sense.

[michaelficarra]

Sure, but does it have to be?

[vendethiel]

does it have to be what?

[michaelficarra]

Functionally related to |>.

[aeosynth]

variations: >|, |<

[vendethiel]

Functionally related to |>.

No I agree and I'd +1 the <| but yeah |> is ref in coco

[satyr]

f a >< b sort of looks like the middle parentheses of ( f a )( b )

Nice one. Easily extendable to an existential version: f a >?< b