You can tell the authors realized this was a bad idea when they had to add the 'OVER' keyword, which isn't documented and hardly mentioned in the paper.
I disagree that the paper not mentioning ‘OVER’ implies that the paper authors secretly think pipe syntax is a bad idea. They probably just wanted to keep the paper concise, or forgot about that one less-used bit of syntax.
Do you think that ‘OVER’ keyword implies something fundamentally wrong about pipe syntax? If so, how?
