Re: Mixing operators and dot notation

["G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 03.06.16 13:09, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
>
> SourceType.Generate_Data
>     .Op1 (FromXtoY.Transformer
>        (User_FuncX'Access)) -- User_FuncX returns Y
>     .Op2 (FromYtoZ.Transformer
>        (User_FuncY'Access)) -- User FuncY returns Z
>     .Endpoint (Z_Type.As_Z (Function'Access));

Seeing the syntax all the time---just the syntax, the
flow construction principles may deserve their own mode
of expression---in Javascript and Swift, I can't say
that it always seems so lovable: no names! No stops.
No context. Where does it start?  Burdensome, obfuscating.

In fact, this becomes a stretched, vertical APL.

Must I really buy a savvy folding editor just to find
the beginning of the chain without scrolling and backwards
scanning, reverting syntactical development in my head?

ML did something by emplying "and" for multiple such
points all relating to one start (the fun's name);
later languages have improved that somewhat by repeating
the name (even though this is referring to definitions,
not chains of calls, just for the picture).

A dialect of Eiffel by the maker of the lout formatting
software (sorry, don't remember the name) has turned MI
Eiffel "functional", every call producing another object
(no state change in objects).

So, if parentheses are to be avoided, and chaining is
an important principle of software construction, should it
not deserve some syntax of its own that reflects the
clarity of Ada's?