These are chat archives for ramda/ramda
Hey y'all could I get some support on this thread on removing promise integration for a compose operator proposal.
Even if its just a :thumbsup:
Going to cross post sorry for the annoyance.
"side-effects": false,in the package.json is doing? Is it related to
From that thread, the last post:
Composition (compose operator) and application (apply aka pipe operator) aren't one in the same.
I’m not sure I see the difference. Can someone clarify?
pipemight return a function, might return a value, depending on how many arguments I give it. how bout we just propose that all JS functions be auto-curried :)
compose(fn3, fn2, fn1)or
fn3 +> fn2 +> fn1? I have to google the latter to learn what that operator is.
composeif at first glane and every glance a function
+>operator is always
# of fns * 2while
9 + # of fns. I'm guessing I'm just lazy is the reason I don't like the
compose(f,g)(x) == f(g(x))
compose(square, double, third)does by giving it 6...
+>do it in?
>) to the next function?
Take no language level action, because there's plenty of elegant userland solutions - James Forbes
I'm adding that to my wall of quotes. I like this on a deep personal level.
const missyElliot = reverseBits +> v => -1 * v +> v => v--;
Ew. I don't like that at all...
const missyElliot = compose( reverseBits, v => -1 * v, v => v--);