suppose I have a function like ``` fun asString()...

# codingconventions

[thanksforallthefish]

suppose I have a function like

fun asString(): (Any) -> String = Any::toString

I can call it in 2 ways

- asString()(anObject)
- asString().invoke(anObject)

I believe the first way would be more idiomatic, but coming from java I still prefer the second (()() looks too weird to me). For the sake of who will come after me, which version would you suggesting to use?

[marstran]

You could just do val asString = Any::toString. Then you can call it with asString(anObject).

[thanksforallthefish]

true as well (which is actually what I have in the real world scenario)

[thanksforallthefish]

although the original question still stands (I am also composing function, in that case I have to use `fun`s)

fun <A, B, C> ((A) -> B).then(then: (B) -> C): (A) -> C = { input -> then(this(input)) }

at call site is either:

- a.then(b).invoke(input)
- a.then(b)(input)

[thanksforallthefish]

a and b are something like val a = Any::toString

[marstran]

You can still compose functions even though you use val.
But anyway, I think a.then(b)(input) looks better.

[bdawg.io]

I find using the operator syntax has looked better in almost every scenario. I sometimes will use invoke(...) over this(...). There are other times where I've been restricted by Kotlin semantics (ie, b[c]?.doSomethingExisting() ?: b.set(c, default()) since ... ?: (b[c] = default()) is not allowed)