Tomas Grosup

Am I right assuming the real benefit should arrive pretty much only at LOC with both a `fun` and a `with` as of now? i.e. somewhat close to what top...

I like how this proposal reads, even though the use case for "pipeline of updates" is likely a lot smaller than one for "pipeline of gets". Personally, I would especially...

Hi @tboby, I really like this idea. Would you mind if I try to have a look and attempt to revive this PR? Or are you planning to continue on...

I spent some time trying to support _.prop in pattern matching, if user code supplies its own active pattern to handle it. However, the needed syntax constructs are not possible...

For completeness: > I spent some time trying to support _.prop in pattern matching, if user code supplies its own active pattern to handle it. However, the needed syntax constructs...

@nojaf: I think that the existing constructs are "undecided" on the granularity as well - doBang, matchBang exist as a more meaningful standalone SynExpr, instead of having a meaning-less (on...

Agree to the rest, will add the cases you mentioned so that it is visible already in this PR diff on how the tree looks like.

I have added: - sigdata roundtrip test - syntaxtree tests for positive and negative scenarios (some of the negative ones do not end up with an DotLambda syntraxtree item eventually)...

The opening suggestion would be to analyze the inner synExpr (of the DotLambda node) in CheckExpressions and look for NonAtomic App . If one is found , report it. Something...

> > I think that the existing constructs are "undecided" on the granularity as well - doBang, matchBang exist as a more meaningful standalone SynExpr, instead of having a meaning-less...