Allow with syntax.

[evinism]

We might want let syntax, via with [expression] as [identifier] in [expression]. This'll be a bit of a journey to get though, so not immediately available.

[evinism]

One of the first real projects I had with MistQL made it so that "with" syntax was extremely necessary. I'm probably gonna formalize this and add it because not having it seems to be a major issue.

2 possible styles:

1. with {var1: var2, var3: var4} in expression
2. with var1 as var2, var3 as var4 in exp

Additionally i need to determine how it binds with other things, and whether there's a better way to tackle ambiguity like this.

[evinism]

With pipes propagating values, you can do this with something like:

{ alias1: 2 * "something" } | apply (whatever you were planning on doing)

Still awkward but certainly better than nothing, and certainly good enough the time being.

[evinism]

Probably gonna keep this out of the language for the time being. Unless the idiom {alias: value} | apply ( ... ) becomes too cumbersome, we should opt to reduce complexity of the language, and keep this dedicated syntax out.

Even better, if #110 gets adopted, then the idiom becomes {alias: value} |> (...) which is wonderfully concise and satisfies the issue completely. With that in mind, I'm going to close this issue as our path forward is really through the |> operator