Seeking feedback on Chainables before registering it

[goerz]

Thank you for this announcement! What I was a little bit concerned about when I saw the package initially is a general question that I’ve now formulated in

Macros and Type Piracy

Motivated by Seeking feedback on Chainables before registering it, I initially thought that that proposed new package was modifying the behavior of existing macros (like @chain from Chain.jl). I think that was a misunderstanding on my part, but it does raise the general question of if and how it is possible for a package to safely extend the functionality of macros defined by another package. The potential concern here is “type piracy”, which is defining methods for functions you don’t own for …

On a slightly closer view at your README, I don’t think you’re actually modifying the behavior of macros defined by other packages. Is that correct? If so, I have no concerns about the package in principle. Of course,

@oschulz

I wonder if there might be some synergy potential here

is still a great question to discuss here, and I’ll leave it to you and everyone else in this thread to figure that out. At the end of the day, I’d follow your best judgement as to whether Chainables has a place as an independent package in its current or any modified form; so when this discussion has run its course and you’d like me to unblock the registration PR, just tag me there!