On 26.07.2010 12:06, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Dmitry A. Soshnikov:
In JS |x| can be placed outside, and then some special name won't be
needed at all:
[1, 2, 3].map((x) {x * x}).
Wouldn’t this have the same problem that Oliver mentioned? Only in this
case the ambiguity would be whether the “(x)” is a parenthesized
expression or the introduction of the anonymous function.
Sam Ruby:
[0,1,2,3].map {|x| x*x}
(try it in 'irb' to see what I mean)
While I don't believe that would fly here, perhaps adding parens
around the function would:
[0,1,2,3].map({|x| x*x})
I think having the braces on the outside would help with the
aforementioned problem. The vertical bars don’t particularly grab me
(not being a Rubyist), but this does:
[0, 1, 2, 3].map({ x => x * x }); // optionally { (x) => x * x }?
function mapPairs(o, f) {
for (var p in o) {
f(p, o[p]);
}
}
mapPairs(someObject, { (a, b) => a + '=' + b) });
That's look interesting, yeah, I (personally) like it. Also beside =>
can be used "traditional" function definition sign of some functional
(and not only functional) languages: ->
Coffee (while using -> for functions) uses => sugar for binding the
`this` value with defining a function at the same time:
http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/#fat_arrow which I think also
a good sugar for `.bind` method.
(Sorry for adding more options to the discussion — quick rebuttals as to
why the above wouldn’t work welcome.)
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
