On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Claus Reinke wrote: > I finally got a first look at the 'Virtual Values for Language Extension' > paper referred to in the value proxies strawman [1], > and suddenly find value proxies more interesting. > > Somehow the term proxy never suggested to me that this > would allow for user-defined infix operators - perhaps a wiki > page named 'infix operators', listing relevant pages (value > proxies, modulo operator, operators/generic functions, ..) > might help. Generally, finding relevant information on the wiki isn't > straightforward for newcomers.
Good point, operators in particular need some navigational help. I'll do something about it. > On to questions: > > 1. Are fundamental traps for binary operators in value proxies the only > current candidate for user-defined infix operators? > (currently, even this candidate isn't part of Harmony) No, we've talked about operators for other types of objects too. The current value types strawmen: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_types http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_proxies hint at this. More work needed. > 2. Do they make any provisions for specifying operator > precedence/associativity? Certainly not. We are not trying to enable new operators to be defined. We are not trying to enable user-defined changes to the precedence, e.g., of * vs. +. These are anti-goals. Moreso (stronger anti-goal language) for associativity! /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
