bramtayl

Is `_(_.a > _.b)` that much shorter than `_ -> _.a > _.b` ?

Im on board now. Only case tight currying doesn't work with chaining is when you need to reference a chained object more than once. At that point, might as well...

It seems like this that this could be generalized based on the AST. That is, `Expr(head, args...)` would become anonymous if args directly contains `:_`.

Ok, so for some more thoughts, why not use curly brackets for specifying the boundaries? It seems a little less arbitrary than the "tight" rule? Downside is killing two syntaxes...

Ok here's another idea. What about -> with no left side meaning anonymous function, anonymous arguments? _ as the first, __ as the second, etc. It could have the same...

I think argument 1 could be 1 underscore (`_`), argument 2 could be 2 underscores (`__`), etc. This is how things are currently done in the queryverse. Ref https://www.queryverse.org/Query.jl/stable/experimental/#The-_-and-__-syntax-1 and...

Hmm, needing to use the same argument in multiple places happens all the time in querying though, I think. Consider processing a row of a table: you might need to...

The extra `_` for the second argument seems to me to be a very small price to pay for the flexibility of using an argument as many times as you...

It seems to me likely that wanting to make a two argument anonymous function will be much less common than wanting to reference an argument more than once

`_i` would definitely work too. I suppose I could go through some code and count the number of times you have different numbers of arguments in anonymous functions and the...