Am Di., 9. Juni 2020 um 15:49 Uhr schrieb Adam Nelson <xxxxxx@nels.onl>:

> 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`.

That's a good point about `=>', which actually moves an implicit
argument around. So I agree that it is a better choice than `->'.

But you don't want to override `=>' of the base library, but every
implementer would have to provide a SRFI 197 binding for `=>'. This is
certainly doable because `=>' is, so far, used only as auxiliary
syntax.

Otherwise, I would prefer `seq' for brevity.