On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > On May 18, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > > > >> In the end, these are just symbols and JS programmer are just going to > have to learn their meaning. Existing conventions, if they exist, and > analogous do impact initial learnability but in the long run I don't know if > it makes much a difference as long as they aren't prone to keyboarding > hazards. > > > > The precedents matter a bit, even if we try to create a new idiom. The > problem is < not | (although doesn't that look too light in Helvetica on > either side?). > > I don't think :> works, as you say. It looks like crap, frankly, in too > many fonts. However, does |> not work? > I made my peace with <| when Allen pointed out that the object on the left points at the object on the right. Flipping it around loses that mnemonic. This "points at" intuition should be independent of any prior exposure to UML. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
