# Fixing the Piping/Chaining Issue

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fixing-the-piping-chaining-issue/89654>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** proposal, piping, chaining, partial-evaluation, threading\
**Created:** [November 2, 2022, 11:04am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fixing-the-piping-chaining-issue/89654 "2022-11-02T11:04:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 144

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![uniment](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/uniment/32/24532_2.png) [@uniment](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/uniment)\
**Post date:** [November 8, 2022, 5:18am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fixing-the-piping-chaining-issue/89654/144 "2022-11-08T05:18:17Z")

</div>

Yeah, I think the ultimate objective should be to ~~find~~ settle on a syntax which can be a proper part of the language, so that the effort to build out the other things that would depend on it can be justified.

Fun sidenote though, for the adjoint-hijacking script, you can use `:` instead of `□`. There’s hardly an instance that you would care to send `:` as an argument to a function anyway.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fixing-the-piping-chaining-issue/89654)._