On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: >> I had dinner with Jeremy Ashkenas last month, and he testified that >> CoffeeScript's disamgibuator pass (between lexing and parsing) is a work in >> progress and a work of (literately programmed) random logic, which he has >> tweaked based on user bug reports, even recently. >> > You mean it was hard for Coffee to implement this foo?.bar? etc?
Not really given Coffee's lack of ?: as ternary operator. But in general, we can't harvest syntax from CoffeeScript without bottom-up, ASI-aware grammar validation. It is easy to go wrong. > Hm, not good. The whole ambiguity of this construct with casual a ? : c > already makes it not good for me. And by the way, Coffee didn't have ? : it > uses inline if - then instead. > > (well, actually it's possible to write in Coffee a = b ? b : c, but it > compiles into completely different semantics). Right! > in my view, the operator is not "?." (i.e. "a question followed by a dot"), > but still just ?. The following dot is already about property accessor: > > foo.bar?.baz > > again, bar? is separated, and only after that it's accessed to `baz` via > casual dot notation. ?. is doable as a new operator, but we need a better quantification of how useful it is in CS. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
