optional process

[Paul Backus]

On Thursday, 5 December 2019 at 15:30:52 UTC, Taylor Hillegeist 
wrote:
> On Friday, 29 November 2019 at 15:24:31 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>
>>    .pipe!((output) {
>>       if (sortOutput)
>>          return output.sort!("a < b");
>>       else
>>          return output;
>>    })
>>    .writeln(); // maybe you meant each!writeln ?
>
> Why pipe as apposed to compose?
>
> Pipes functions in sequence. It offers the same functionality 
> as compose, but with functions specified in reverse order. This 
> may lead to more readable code in some situation because the 
> order of execution is the same as lexical order.
>
> How does this not reverse the range?

range
     .pipe!someFunction
     .each!writeln;

is the same as

range
     .someFunction
     .each!writeln;

So why use pipe? Because in this case, the function we want to 
apply is a lambda, and you can't call lambdas with UFCS.