@Vinnymac the distinction is that the `tap` proposed here is not called
per-member, I think.

It has nothing _specifically_ to do with arrays (or iterables generally);
they just happen to be the most common chaining targets. (See the example
implementation from Bob Myers above).

Because tap isn’t particular to arrays, I think this is a good example of
something one of the proposed chain-oriented operators would be good for.
That is, `::bind` (which should be called `::call` probably?) or the more
general `|>` which unpacks nested calls into a linear readable chain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170716/197d6a0e/attachment.html>

@Vinnymac the distinction is that the `tap` proposed here is not called
per-member, I think.

It has nothing _specifically_ to do with arrays (or iterables generally);
they just happen to be the most common chaining targets. (See the example
implementation from Bob Myers above — could as readily be plopped on
`Object.prototype`, provided you are feeling naughty).

Because tap isn’t particular to arrays, I think this is a good example of
something one of the proposed chain-oriented operators would be good for.
That is, `::bind` (which should be called `::call` probably?) or the more
general `|>` which unpacks nested calls into a linear readable chain.