Method calls on the same precedence level as application

[ppolesiuk]

A syntactic sugar for chaining method calls would be nice. For instance

m.foo x y
  >.bar 42
  >.baz 13

would be syntactic sugar for ((m.foo x y).bar 42).baz 13.

The choice of the syntax could be discussed. I like >. as in the above example, but other options I see are |. |>. .>. The |. is particularly interesting, because | has special meaning and the programmer cannot define such an operator.

[ppolesiuk]

In a democratic process, we agreed on >. syntax.