Peter van der Zee пишет:
> Rather than overloading existing operators, might it be an idea to
> introduce a new generic "programmable" operator? It's just a thought.
> In all fairness it doesn't feel quite like js to me, but the desire to
> handle/define operators seems to be present. Maybe the @ sign would be
> fitting for this. It's already used in the spec to explain compound
> assignments. And it's big enough such that you won't easily mistake it
> for something else.
>
> var r = x @ y;
>
> Now, of course people will want to program multiple operators. So
> maybe something like
>
> x @name@ y
>
> would be better suited, where name may be pretty much anything except
> the at sign itself.
>
> The programmable operator would probably be a binary function.
>
> function @+@(x,y){ return x+y; }
> or
> function @+@{ return x+y; }
> (if/since it'd always be binary)
>
> But one might think of constructs where you can define unary
> prefix/postfix operators.
>
> Again, I'm not convinced this is the way to go myself, just throwing
> it out here. The whole proxy overloading thing just seems to "hide"
> what's actually going on and overly complicate things. In production,
> that's gonna haunt you some day.
>
> - peter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
Look at Haskell :P
--
Alexander.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
