News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on For the Love of Pipes. Parent comment

Re:For the Love of Pipes by sideeffffect on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @02:23PM (#18971451)
maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but people seem to be confused about this:

the pipes in your typical functional language (`|>`) is not a form of function composition, like

```

f >> g === x -> g(f(x))

```

but function application, like

```

f x |> g === g(f(x))

x |> f |> g // also works, has the same meaning

f |> g // just doesn't work, sorry :(

```

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For the Love of Pipes by chriswarbo on Friday January 25, 2019 @11:16AM (#18999292)
> the pipes in your typical functional language (`|>`) is not a form of function composition

What is a "typical functional language" in this case? I don't think I've come across this `|>` notation, or anything explicitly referred to as a "pipe", in the functional languages I tend to use (Haskell, Scheme, StandardML, Idris, Coq, Agda, ...); other than the Haskell "pipes" library, which I think is more elaborate than what you're talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]