In this video I'll show what the pipeline operator is good for, ... Ruby 2.7 introduces the pipeline operator and there is a proposal to also add it to JavaScript. I didn't know about the A constructive and inclusive social network. prefers parentheses over white space), but I don't mind having these features because I think it would help me write prototype code faster. There's a big fuss going on in the ruby world about an upcoming operator inappropriately named "the pipeline operator".A traditional pipeline operator lets you unwrap nested function calls like I wanted to expand on a comment from that thread from Johan Wentholt: Overall a pretty informative post.
Currently Ruby Infrastructure and Frameworks @Square. Even Why was this accepted? I would like to show you some of those implementations and let you judge for yourself their merits.The pipeline operator is used to provide the output of the left side to the input of the right side. I am getting hugely tired of people being so single-minded.You also conveniently ignored the part where I mentioned I'm still co-organizing a monthly Ruby meetup and a conference later this year. You could potentially add a method in one location, which caused the syntax to change in another.I think Haskell's dollar sign would be more useful. I do not believe this achieves that goal.The main points to the contrary are that the pipeline in other languages is a powerful and expressive feature for code. The pipeline operator is effectively an alias for dot-chaining, and from the source: ...and from the test code: This, as it is written, is the current implementation of the pipeline operator as has been discussed in the Ruby bug tracker. I slightly dislikePeople seem to base their reasoning largely on their own personal preferences primarily;To be fair, I don't particularly like Haskell code and find it very cryptic, whichOddly enough, I actually felt that Haskell has a fairly clean syntax. And I'll tell you why ⚡️ People love taking things out of context too.You can see this on reddit, where people keep on claiming "omg omg omg this is not following the principle of least surprise". Interstate.
In my personal experience, I found the $ operator in Haskell one of the most difficult to get used to. <<, for a(b()), and >> for b(a()). Please keep feedback constructive and civil (MINASWAN), and focus on his mention of the The pipeline operator is effectively an alias for dot-chaining, and from the source:This, as it is written, is the current implementation of the pipeline operator as has been discussed in the The bigger point IMHO though is that major controversial decisions areI am inclined to agree with him and several others discussing this change, and will lay out my reasoning for this below, including points in favor and counterpoints to the contrary.Pipelining is seen as a way to multi-line methods and make it clearer that that is being done:My objection to this would be that Ruby blocks are already confusing for newer developers, and are frequently a subject of contention when learning Ruby.Adding a new language construct that does not have a clear differentiating factor will only exacerbate this and make the language harder to learn.We also have precedence arguments over the english operators As with the above issue of multiple syntaxes for the same task with different precedences, this will also confuse newer programmers.In this case I do not believe this is so. I cannot see anyone really supporting this idea in this issue's comments.The example in the commit seems very unconvincing to me:I assume matz approved it. Since Ruby is elegantly crafted, most Ruby users can forget about the implicit first argument (e.g. In old-school assignments, you can easily find where the assignment happens and know when it happens.I believe that the ONLY sane reason for the new operator is ending the long chain with "...and now, put it into variable". They can focus on writing OO codes on explicit arguments. It's clear we can't use My early thinking about this syntax is it's a very narrow use-case.I think there is nothing wrong with having parentheses for Range, I think they actually help readability.To be fair, I don't particularly like Haskell code and find it very cryptic, which this is getting closer to.Also, if we actually introduce a pipeline operator, I think it's much more useful to have Elixir semantics of passing the result as the first argument of the RHS, than just a different syntax for I think there is nothing wrong with having parentheses for Range, IMy comment is not meant in regards to the example given for Range here, but more in general.There is one slight problem in regards to syntax diversification in general - it canYou mentioned Haskell lateron, and I remember an older discussion on #gobolinux withWhile ruby is, in my opinion, much easier than haskell, I think adding syntax flexibility,Martin's desugared version which works today is actually shorter and I believe mostYes, I think that example was clearer - I have this often with some other changes too.Note that I do not have a huge preference in this regard though. You've just presented a counter-opinion.I love Ruby, it's the first programming language I ever learned (with Rails), but that is a toneless and disturbing response.