On 6/9/20 9:40 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of these pipeline processings a lot, but I expect that
> the usage of -> as symbol would decrease readability and accessibility
> of code a lot. Also -> already has meaning within Scheme as conversion
> between types, e.g. number->string.
>
> Could that syntax be optional with a simple named version as base case?
>
> This could for example be:
>
> pipeline pipeline-last as-pipeline some-pipeline some-pipeline-last
> cond-pipeline lambda-pipeline.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne
If it were to use a named version, I'd prefer to keep it short; perhaps
"pipe" or "seq" instead of "pipeline". I understand the concern about
the existing meaning of `->`, though. Perhaps `=>` would be better? It
already has the meaning of "take an implicit argument and pass it to a
procedure" in `cond`.