I have a meta-comment here.

As a community I feel sometimes that we are trying to make people converge. "Somebody already wrote a transducers library, I cannot write another transducers library, we have to merge". Now, I understand that sometimes we don't have the "manpower" to solve all the problems in the world, but let's not coerce people to "converge" just for converging.

Most of the times, different libraries are implemented with different tradeoffs and different use case scenarios, and even with different aesthetic preferences. I think I'm saying nothing strange if I say that there is no silver bullet :).

Some people may implement their own library for fun:

��- I don't want to prevent people from having fun

��- I don't want to prevent myself from having fun

So Steffen, please deliver something nice, with nice docs, and have fun and thanks :)

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Steffen M��rcker <merkste@web.de> wrote:

Short: No. =)

Actually, the <~ notation was originally proposed by another Smalltalker on the vwnc list. The idea was that <~ visualizes the flow into the variable, which I find nice (see first expression). However, I do understand that this alienates others. Hence, I am non-religious about the matter; I could even live with both messages coexisting.

Denis I agree. I do not like to code in reverse order.

I like abstraction. But I think names and order of computation should be
changed to be more Smalltalk friendly. Because now it looks like Haskell
with right to left order:

squares := Set <~ 1000 take <~ #squared map <~ (1 to: 1000).
fileOut writeStream <~ #isSeparator filter <~ fileIn readStream.

Is there any reason to not change it?

Best, Steffen

��	Guille Polito Research Engineer Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille CRIStAL - UMR 9189 French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr Web: http://guillep.github.io Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13