does expr support high order function? about expr HOT 6 CLOSED

Working on pipes right now.

from expr.

👉 The other option is making the expr support Unix pipe (|), but I don't know if this idea is good or not.

I have been thinking about this for a lot of time now. It is a good idea. The syntax will be concise and easy to read.

other_tool(s) | tail(1, "=" ) | cut(1, "=")

I like this kind of pipe with the first parameter omitted.

from expr.

Currently no, but I think it can be added. Why do you need it?

from expr.

Hi @antonmedv, Thanks for reply.
In my scenario, I need lots of string processing on one string, I implement the custom string processing function, like cut, tail ... and found that the syntax is not elegant when applying the amount of functions on the string: cut(tail(other_tool(s),1, "=" ), 1, "=") .

So I try to implement the Unix like pipe using expr.Function. The pipe function signature will be pipe(s, function(string) func(string) string...), the above example use pipe function will become pipe(s, other_tool(s), cut(1, "="), tail(1, "=")). pipe function POC: https://goplay.tools/snippet/2mRsAyZPvEg

👉 In this implementation, the string processing function can worked in pipe, but not work independently. I want it can be used independently, for example: cut(1, "=")(s), it leads the error unexpected token Bracket("(") now.
👉 The other option is making the expr support Unix pipe (|), but I don't know if this idea is good or not.

from expr.

@antonmedv Do you have any thoughts on priority? I understand if you can't work on this and am very thankful for the library, but I figured I could add a use case: I was just reading this and the idea seems pretty exciting. I was doing some research and poking around with frontend html templating using WASM and wanted to use expr in the templates. The pipe feature would really improve readability and usefulness of something like this.

from expr.

@PaluMacil I totally agree pipes add readability. Will definitely implement pipes, but don't know the exact timing yet.

from expr.