[upzylon]

Thanks for linking the code, I meant to link to the pipe section of the README but obviously botched that and can't change it now :)

I was really exited about the pipe proposal and actively followed the discussion like 4 years ago. But with every passing year of no progress my excitement is slowly dying.

An `applyPipe` function is an interesting idea. My only concern with it is that the first function in the pipe could have more (or less) than one argument. And in that case how would you know where the arguments stop and the functions begin? Maybe the first parameter should be an array of the arguments. Or applyPipe could be of the form applyPipe(1, 2)(add, square, whatever). What do you think? If there is interest in this I'll add it.

[btown]

If I'm reaching for this form, I'm likely thinking about a pipeline of unary functions, and the TC39 proposal seems to take the same approach. Plus, doesn't every other function in the pipeline need to be unary after the first?

As a half-baked thought, perhaps callPipe would take exactly one non-function argument to start the pipeline (which would appeal to most use cases), and applyPipe could take an array of args, mimicking the call/apply duality in native JS?

[upzylon]

Yes, every function except the first one needs to have exactly one argument.

Others have also said that `pipe` is not an ideal name for the function. So perhaps renaming it to `compose` and have `pipe` be of the form `pipe(arg, funA, funB, ...)` (like you suggested for `applyPipe`) might be the solution. Will need to think about it a bit more.

[anderskaseorg]

Note ‘compose’ conventionally connotes a right-to-left order, so that (f ∘ g ∘ h)(x) = f(g(h(x))).