Tomasz Linkowski

> I think this would be a great enhancement. Cool 😃 >One thing I would consider is to not wrap the existing DSL Sure. We wrote it this way because...

> Great concept, I love it 🎉 Thank you 😊 > Not too sure about overloading the minus operator, it's a bit surprising (maybe a new infix fun would serve...

> The DSLs should be as similar as possible, within the idioms of the language Yes, thank you! I believe this actually rules the "declarative" flavor out. > I'm nervous...

>maybe its worth putting forward a simple style (with mapOf, for example, matching the JS object style), alongside this body DSL? You mean sth like this? ```kotlin obj( "foo" to...

An idea on how to get rid of `toList()` calls in some of the methods mentioned above. I think of a special `SeqBuffer` class (possibly implementing `Streamable` [#85]) that would...

No, it is a bad solution. The above wouldn't work if the `seq()` method were called more than once and then both `Seq`s were consumed interchangeably: 1. `Seq.seq(buffer).append(spliterator)` would throw...

Sample implementation: ```java default Seq onEmptySwitch(Supplier

> Why are you flatmapping your "lazy" stream with Supplier get? If the this stream contains 3 elements, for instance, that would call Supplier.get() 3 times. No, no - this...

Thank you for your answer. I'll try to highlight the differences to make it more clear: 1. [`Seq.grouped`](https://www.jooq.org/products/jOO%CE%BB/javadoc/0.9.14/org/jooq/lambda/Seq.html#grouped-java.lang.Iterable-java.util.function.Function-) - works on the current `T` *only* (uses `Function`) - evaluates lazily...

Did you find the time to think about it? :) I'll understand if you want to wait until more people request this feature, though. In the meantime, here's some explanation...