Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Kenneth Powers
Of course, decorators. # was actually my original idea when I was discussing this with co-workers. One of them suggested <>, which reminds me of the multi-character proposal for pipelining (|>, I believe). In the case of indexed shorthand argument names as in my original proposal (and bash, and

Re: Extended dot notation (pick notation) proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Jason Orendorff
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Bob Myers wrote: > Sorry for using ALL CAPS. I will not do that any more. You're right: this > proposal DOES (oops, I meant *does*) increase the size of the spec. Is that > the new criteria, that no proposal may increase the size of the spec? >

Re: Extended dot notation (pick notation) proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Jason Orendorff
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Bob Myers wrote: > In the proposed "pick/destructure into an object" syntax, I would use > identical destructuring syntax > > ``` > obj.{foo: {bar: {qux}}} > ``` > > which would turn into `{qux: obj.foo.bar.qux}`. > > We are simply using identical

Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Alan Johnson
I found the underscores in Scala confusing at first, for sure. Of course, after a couple months working with the language, you feel right at home. Worth noting that Swift does something kind of like Bash, with indexed shorthand argument names

RE: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread doodad-js Admin
Should not “private fields” be a decorator ? From: Jordan Harband [mailto:ljh...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:32 PM To: Kenneth Powers Cc: es-discuss Subject: Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments @ is currently reserved

Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Rick Waldron
What does this mean: let f = @; On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:32 PM Jordan Harband wrote: > @ is currently reserved for decorators, # currently for private fields. > There aren't a lot of compelling syntax options left, to be sure. > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM,

Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Jordan Harband
@ is currently reserved for decorators, # currently for private fields. There aren't a lot of compelling syntax options left, to be sure. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kenneth Powers wrote: > What proposal is "@" reserved for, by chance? I was trying to pick > something

Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Kenneth Powers
What proposal is "@" reserved for, by chance? I was trying to pick something that both wasn't used and can't be the name of a variable (e.g., underscore). I saw another proposal for "?" for partially applying functions, but that would be potentially ambiguous with the ternary operator. As for

Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Jordan Harband
In Scala, the ambiguity of the underscore causes lots of confusion when you have nested functions - how is that handled in your proposal? Bear in mind, I think it's a tough argument that `@ + 1` is so much better than `n => n + 1` that it warrants its own syntax. Separately, the "@" is reserved

Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments

2016-09-23 Thread Kenneth Powers
I have a proposal for new syntax in ES inspired by the placeholder syntax in Scala Functions . Essentially, the idea would be to allow anonymous arguments. The most simple example would be a function which takes

Re: Clarification regarding Completion Records

2016-09-23 Thread Michael Dyck
On 16-09-23 10:24 AM, Felix Kling wrote: I read these paragraphs over and over again ;) Maybe I just need someone to explain it to me in different words. So to apply these to my case: - `ResolveBinding` is an *"abstract operation"* so it returns a completion record, whose value is a

Re: Clarification regarding Completion Records

2016-09-23 Thread Bergi
Felix Kling wrote: - `ResolveBinding` is an *"abstract operation"* so it returns a completion record, whose value is a *"Reference"*, even though completion records are only supposed to have language values as value (6.2.2) (this still confuses me) Uh, that's weird indeed. Looks like you

Re: Clarification regarding Completion Records

2016-09-23 Thread Felix Kling
I read these paragraphs over and over again ;) Maybe I just need someone to explain it to me in different words. So to apply these to my case: - `ResolveBinding` is an *"abstract operation"* so it returns a completion record, whose value is a *"Reference"*, even though completion records are

Re: Make things like Reflect an import instead of a global?

2016-09-23 Thread Isiah Meadows
I don't believe there's a formal proposal yet, but there definitely should be. It's been discussed frequently for years by the standards leaders; it's just that we're 1. still waiting on a loader spec for modules to complete (the WHATWG spec is still a work in progress, with quite a bit of recent

Re: Clarification regarding Completion Records

2016-09-23 Thread Bergi
Felix Kling wrote: I need some clarification around completion records. You'll want to have a look at the algorithmic conventions (http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-algorithm-conventions) and the implicit coercion of completion values