Aaron Matthis

the number of characters saved should be the same for the subscript and the original proposal in all cases where both are applicable. Regarding the number of characters needed, I'd...

Once again, don't intermix the individual underscore with a more complex notation please. I see why you still try to push the "all inidividual underscores refer to the same argument"-concept...

@stevengj I feel like you mixed both, albeit orthogonal, anonymous function issues. The capture scope is only relevant in the other issue while this issue is meant to focus on...

I was proposing a cleaner style for a certain subset of lambdas which can't be handled by the fence-less proposal of the other issue. Hence my considerations about orthogonality. sure,...

```julia -> --| ---| V V ->f(2_) + _ ``` as such `(x, y) -> f(2x) + y`

even more important: circled numbers, once again, are an orthogonal issue. Can we please stick to the individual underscore variant which was proposed? Because increasing the amount of different approaches...

### Comparison of Visual Penalties ### > > Writing (x, y) -> x[y] puts the focus on x and y > > Not for me — I think my eyes...

> My argument is that when #24990 can be used, it provides a welcome workaround around this problem with ordinary lambdas and pipes, but this headless proposal breaks it. I...

Which, IMO would be the better way anyway since that would make this proposal here be the generic case and the fence-less lambda just be a special case of it...

Having opened a [duplicate of this](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/46084) myself I seem to really want this feature. 😄 So I may sum up my current position. (Still assuming complete orthogonality to https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/24990) #...