Noah Ma

I wonder if some forms can be abstracted as functions? like `X`, `⏚` and `n>` (it seems that the forms without parentheses can be handled like this?).

> I noticed that the name of (flow (~> + add1)) on its own is composed. That might be because compose internally ends up naming the result composed, and "names...

> In general, I wonder if that should be considered a bug in procedure-rename. Seems like renaming a callable struct should preserve its type. Yeah, I've reported it (https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/4455). >...

> I can tell that the flow expects 0 or more input values It seems that this change doesn't affect it? > and by analogy with regular Racket I expect...

I find that passing `flow-lambda`'s rest-args as a list directly to flo will cause some consistency issues: ```racket (define (t a #:b b . x) `(a b ,(apply + x)))...

> There are cases where it could make sense to use them together: Yeah, it looks good to me! > But __ cannot. Would it be worth supporting a case...

> Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with the actual issue RE: _ and __. Oh, I've been working on how to use function values\, and one strategy that came...

Ah, I don't have much experience with qi, but I thought something similar would be useful when I tried doing meru exercises. And when I was learning category theory I...

With that change, the procedures returned by `compose` will work fine: ```racket Welcome to Racket v8.6 [cs]. > (require qi) > (procedure-arity (flow (~> cons))) 2 > (procedure-arity (flow (~>...

Sorry for the late reply. > If you decide to go with this third option I can help you set up a package on the Racket package index when you...