New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lambda sugar: books |> Array.map(fun'.Name) #604

Closed
xp44mm opened this Issue Sep 3, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@xp44mm

xp44mm commented Sep 3, 2017

Title of Suggestion

I propose we ... (describe your suggestion here)
need a lambda sugar.
The existing way of approaching this problem in F# is ...
books |> Array.map(fun book -> book.Name)

Pros and Cons

too long to read or wrtite
The advantages of making this adjustment to F# are ...
books |> Array.map(fun'.Name)
it is so simple, and also if you change your mind, then you can backspace fun x -> x...
The disadvantages of making this adjustment to F# are ...
fun'. will be a keyword, i want to nobody have used it as identity.

Extra information

Estimated cost (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL):
XS
Related suggestions: (put links to related suggestions here)

Affidavit (please submit!)

Please tick this by placing a cross in the box:

  • [x ] This is not a question (e.g. like one you might ask on stackoverflow) and I have searched stackoverflow for discussions of this issue
  • [ x] I have searched both open and closed suggestions on this site and believe this is not a duplicate
  • [ x] This is not something which has obviously "already been decided" in previous versions of F#. If you're questioning a fundamental design decision that has obviously already been taken (e.g. "Make F# untyped") then please don't submit it.

Please tick all that apply:

  • [ x] This is not a breaking change to the F# language design
  • I or my company would be willing to help implement and/or test this
@xuanduc987

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xuanduc987

xuanduc987 commented Sep 3, 2017

Related #506

@dsyme

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dsyme

dsyme Sep 3, 2017

Collaborator

I think this should be part of the #506 discussion - we wouldn't do both of these :)

Collaborator

dsyme commented Sep 3, 2017

I think this should be part of the #506 discussion - we wouldn't do both of these :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment