I've updated my proposal to use `+>` instead of `|>`, based on this
discussion:

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50

https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 at 13:17 T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "incompatible" is a very strong and likely incorrect claim. `(sync1 |>
> sync2 |> async1).then(x => x |> sync3 |> async2).then(x => async3)` could
> work just fine.
>
> Or indeed, a robust proposal might allow for async functions in the
> pipeline (with some indication, so you can look at the code and reason
> about it; although `then` accepts non-thenable values and you can't tell by
> looking, so...). Conceptually:
>
> ```js
> let x = sync1 |> sync2 |*> async1 |> sync3 |*> async2 |*> async3;
> ```
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170830/abc40b39/attachment.html>

I've updated my proposal to use `+>` instead of `|>`, based on this discussion:

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50

https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition

I've updated my proposal to use `+>` instead of `|>`, based on this

discussion:

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50

https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition