Pipeline Operators


Pipeline “operators” or “threading”1 constructs are interesting language constructs. They are an acknowledgement that functional code can be a little obtuse. They reorient (or rewrite) functional code so it looks more like a “dataflow”. Particularly of Lisps, but also of some other functional languages, execution moves from the inside of expressions to the outside in a way that’s not particularly natural feeling. It’s a real source of the difficulty people express when reading functional code.


(reduce + (map #(+ % 5) (filter #(= (rem % 2) 0) (range 50))))

So what does this do? It’s a little hard to say. Allow me to introduce the threaded macro:

    (range 50)
    (filter #(= (rem % 2) 0))
    (map #(+ % 5))
    (reduce +))

This is the “thread-last” macro, which inserts the last expression as the last argument to the current statement. It’s a macro, so this rewriting is done at compile time. Clojure also has a “thread-first” macro, which puts the last expression in the first argument, and most use of these macros is with these 2 macros. This is because the Clojure standard library is carefully written so that, based on the data type you’re dealing with, the operative argument is always either the first or the last across multiple relevant functions. filter, map, and reduce are all similar functions, and they all take the data structure they operate as their last argument.

This can seem a little limiting. Mostly you can just trust the standard library writers, and the public library authors, and your own code, to fit into this model pretty well. If you’re doing something a little strange, you can use the as-> macro to bind a value to a name, and then thread the expressions with the name in the right argument location, rather than implicit placement of the -> macro. The ergonomics isn’t as good because that name ends up littering your pipeline expression, but it’s entirely equivalent and quite useful.2

By reorienting/rewriting the expression, you can easily read from top to bottom the steps the expression takes to build the final value. Clojure also allows for Java interop in the form of (.methodName object args...). This fits into the Clojure syntax nicely, and the threading macros let you chain method calls more easily (although because it calls the method on the object that the last method call returned, it can’t be used to repeatedly call methods on the same object unless that object is already a method chaining object, like a Builder pattern object.)

Of course, one can and should question the value of these macros. As macros, they are new syntax, but the nature of the macros and the aggressive elision of the operant data3 can really obscure what threaded code is actually doing. I think it ultimately produces easier to read code, but it isn’t pure profit: it introduces the mental overhead of knowing at least something about threaded macros.

Outside of understanding how these macros work, there isn’t any extra syntax because, as a Lisp, Clojure’s syntax is so regular.4


Elixir doesn’t have a threading macro, but it does have a pipeline operator. It’s still a macro, and still works in the same way, but looks a little different. It solves the same problems, however.

Enum.reduce(Enum.map(Enum.filter(0..49, &(rem(&1, 2) == 0)), &(&1 + 5)), &+/2)

The Enum module always takes the collection as the first argument, and additional parameters after, which makes the pipeline operator easier to use, but makes this code exceptionally difficult to read. You read the names of the operations first, then the initial collection, then a bunch of parenthesis, operators, and commas that express several anonymous functions that get applied according to the rules of the names you read before, but in reverse order. This code makes heavy use of an anonymous function shorthand, and a piece of syntax that is used to capture a named function as a value (&+/2 captures the 2-arity + operator as a value so you can reduce with it) because it wouldn’t fit on one line otherwise, and indentation will not make this code clearer. Shortened by the pipeline operator, this code gets a lot more readable.

|> Enum.filter(&(rem(&1, 2) == 0))
|> Enum.map(&(&1 + 5))
|> Enum.reduce(&+/2)

Although much more readable, for reference, this is what the code looks like without the anonymous function shorthand.

|> Enum.filter(fn x -> rem(x, 2) == 0 end)
|> Enum.map(fn x -> x + 5 end)
|> Enum.reduce(&+/2)

Elixir is not object oriented and does not have methods, but almost all APIs obey the rule that the first argument is the “method receiver”, so to speak. This is adhered to almost to absurdity as seen in Map.merge/2, which takes 2 arguments, and merges the second map into the first, giving the second map’s keys precedence in the merged map. I think that first into second would be a little more reasonable, but that’s the decision they made (Enum.into/2 can do this, but I digress).

In practice, Elixir code is mostly function calls like above, but not always. Elixir also has structs, which are some sugar on top of maps, but which provide attribute access with method-like calls, so struct.field would index into the struct. Elixir also, of course, has binary operators, which break the usual rule of function syntax and just exist as operand + operand in the code (see my article for further discussion.)

How do these syntax aberrations fit into the pipeline operator? Very poorly. They just don’t at all, and the accepted method of, say, indexing into a struct is with an anonymous function:

|> Database.lookup()
#|> &(&1.field).()
|> fn struct -> struct.field end.()
|> Enum.map(...)

Even when using the shorthand (commented out in the above), this introduces substantial line noise, and because function values can’t be invoked normally, they have to to be called with function.(), even more extraneous syntax is required. Elixir, like Clojure, does have a shorthand for single arity functions that let you elide the ending parentheses, it doesn’t work on anonymous functions, so any time you want to do anything other than just calling functions that share first arguments, you introduce a bunch of extra syntax.

It’s usually easier to use assignment pattern matching, which breaks you out of the pipeline operator mode, which is kind of the whole point, but it also puts the assignment matching at the start of the pipeline expression, while the function that produces the value you’re destructuring is all the way at the end.


Sometimes threading macros and pipeline operators are just too much work, and too much mental overhead. Luckily, we can just return to normal programming. I don’t see code that looks like this very much, but it’s much more flexible:

(let [coll (range 50)
      filtered (filter #(= (rem % 2) coll)
      plus-five (map #(+ % 5) filtered)
      sum (reduce + plus-five)]

let will let you reference any previous arbitrary step, let you rebind names, and will let you destructure and match at any step. Elixir’s variable definitions let you do all of this too (Erlang disallows name rebinding, but Elixir permits it.)5

This does require you to name your intermediate steps which might be a showstopper for some people, but if your code is that complex, names will help whoever has to understand the code next.

It is worth noting that there are a couple of libraries in Elixir that do monadic programming, in that they define a monadic type like {:ok, value} | {:error, message} to indicate success or failure (like a Result type). This is a known type, but there isn’t huge support for it in the standard library, and the pipeline operator can’t deal with it. So, a collection of several different libraries implementing monadic bind and pipeline operators, in addition to some Haskell style do syntax for the full naming and destructuring environment, have sprouted up, like OK. These are all similar but slightly different, and there isn’t a clear winner, so the whole thing is sort of a mess. It’s very useful to be able to pipeline failable operations together while avoiding exceptions, but these libraries generally aren’t substantially easier to use with the above issues.


Rust has all the extra syntax of Elixir with the addition of method calls. Because it has method calls, you can build chaining APIs in Rust, which is sort of the goal of this whole exercise. Just repeatedly call methods on whatever got returned last to do what you want, and you always have normal assignments to fall back on. Of course, someone did write a pipeline crate, and this is what it looks like:

// takes a string length, doubles it and converts it back into a string
let length = pipe!(
    => [len]
    => (as u32)
    => times(2)
    => [to_string]


The names in brackets are method calls on the value, times(2) is a function that multiplies 2 values together, and (as u32) uses the as operator to convert to an unsigned 32 bit integer. Because of diversity of syntax you can use in Rust, to fully express the language in a pipelined fashion, you need a lot of attendant syntax to make yourself clear.

You can use pipeline.rs in a monadic style, like in the following snippet:

let result = pipe_res!("http://rust-lang.org" => download => parse => get_links)

This only calls the next pipe expression if the previous one returned Ok(value) and not Err(error), and calling the next pipe expression with the value rather than the value in its monadic wrapper. This sort of monadic programming is usually seen in rust through the ? macro, which is used on expressions which return Results, and it expands to an expression that either returns the wrapped value directly, or does returns from the function early with the error value. It can’t be used in functions which don’t return Results, but it’s a very idiomatic method of handling multiple failable operations in sequence. You could write the above code using the ? like this:


Which doesn’t really solve the readability problem, to be fair. However, Result does have method chaining API which can be used like so:


Result.and_then applies a function to the value a Result wraps if and only if the result is Ok(value), and expects that function to return another Result<U, E>, but U and E can be unrelated to the types of the original Result.

Ultimately, Rust is a distinctly imperative language that just doesn’t suffer from the same ordering-comprehension issues that Elixir and Clojure do. It has a number of existing tools for managing control flow, but even if you want to use a pipeline macro or similar, thanks to Rust’s powerful ahead of time compiler, you can be sure it won’t have a runtime performance cost.


I don’t really know Haskell, but they generally solve this problem with currying, which is a much broader and more powerful concept, but tends to be opt-in in most languages, and usually not worth the effort or overhead to “opt-in”. Haskell also has a much broader understanding and use of Monads, and has an explicit do syntax in the language, which is used extensively for similar purposes.


Although confusing at first, threaded-style code can bring much needed clarity to complex nested functional code. However, because it’s a syntax transformation, it works best in contexts with simple and straightforward syntax where the syntax transformation is easy to implement and easy to understand, like Clojure.

In more complicated syntactic contexts, like Elixir and Rust, it can be useful, but the additional syntax can make it much harder to understand, and macros quirks must either be learned or worked around.

Rust has enough extra moving pieces that it can accommodate not having a pipeline operator, but Elixir doesn’t, and might need more intricate macros to support better ergonomics.

  1. I can see why they chose this name (you’re threading the expressions together, or you’re threading the data through the expressions), but it clashes with the threads used for parallelism so badly that it makes researching this topic difficult. For reference, you can find the Clojure docs here and the Racket docs here.

  2. Racket doesn’t let you bind to names like as->, but in both first and last threading macros, offers the opportunity to override the default argument position behavior by inserting a _ symbol in the code (like a variable reference) to serve as the insertion point for the last expression. Clojure will let you match/destructure with as->, and end up with several different bound names, but the names get rebound with every expression, so it’s a little hard to imagine a situation where this wouldn’t get very confusing.

  3. This is not helped by some functions producing transducers when called with only 1 argument, like (map #(+ % 5)) outside a thread macro is a valid function call and produces a transducer. Transducers are composed like functions with comp, so if you aren’t entirely familiar with the threaded macro, you might think you were looking at transducer code rather than threaded code.

  4. It is worth noting that, in Clojure, you can “call” a keyword with a map as its argument, and index into a map, like so (:key map), and that this works perfectly fine when used in a threaded macro, so (-> map :key) is equivalent. This is part of a special feature of the threading macros that let you elide the parenthesis around 1-arity calls, so this is also equivalent to (-> map (:key)).

  5. The Elixir version of the let example would be something like this:

      coll = 0..49
      filtered = Enum.filter(coll, &(rem(&1, 2) == 0))
      plus_five = Enum.map(filtered, &(&1 + 5))
      sum = Enum.reduce(plus-five, &+/2)
  6. From pipeline.rs. [return]

clojure elixir code rust language