On May 18, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Brendan Eich 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? > > /be
|> could work but I think we agree that the object literal (or array or function for that matter) really needs to be on the right for readability. In that case |> seems to be point ingin the wrong direction from any of the perspectives: UML generalization, [[Prototype]] pointer direction, type specialization... Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
