Open elfring opened 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand the suggested proposal. I think I would need a specific or instructive example to understand it. Even so, like I mentioned, I have limited time to spend on growing comby in various directions. Currently, it is probably best to use comby
as-is, since it's unlikely that I can introduce richer purpose-built functionality for requests.
I suggest to choose names for known transformation patterns. Selected names can be reused instead of repeating code rewriting specifications, can't they? :thinking:
Changes are directly specified together with match operators for rewrite expressions so far. I suggest to connect such change specifications to identifiers. The identifiers can be reused then at various places. How do you think about to extend the software functionality in such a design direction? :thinking: