Pipe-Syntax?

[Manfred Nowak]

Dejan Lekic wrote:

> extremely unreadable to an imperative programmer.
I sort myself to the imperative programming league. 

> not to include every possible feature a
> functional language might have.
Very well put.

> If you really, really want something like that, then the D way would
> be to use the "~" operator perhaps...
A "no" for both from me. Because it is a first thought only and `~' has the 
same "history" as `!' in D. 

As Alex points out, another D way seems to be to write something like:
  pipe!( echo!args,
         CmdLin,
         pipe!(argnum, suffix, " arg: ", argv),
         writeln
       );
But I do not see any sugar in this.

-manfred