My opinion can be summarized as follows: The operator is really useful, we need
it or at least its functionality (alternatively, as a method). I suspect that
the patterns are better supported via class literals that hides the details via
sugaring, but they elegantly illustrate why the operator is so useful.
> My think was that the feature could always be extended in the future to allow
> a non-literal RHS if we wanted to deal with those issues.
Makes sense.
>> From your examples, it looks as if the lhs would be modified, a bit similar
>> to the += operator. Then the "arrow" should probably point in the opposite
>> direction, e.g.:
>>
>>> objToBeModified +> increment
>
> I don't follow your logic for the pointer direction.
True. <& points in the right direction. When I think about it, I actually
object to it looking so similar to <| (which is perfect, especially how it
looks). This suggests a sameness that does not exist. Compound assignment might
be a better idea:
obj += increment; // overloaded for strings, why not for objects?
obj o= increment; // the circle means overriding in many algebraic theories
obj °= increment;
>> I love how the prototype is incremented here. What does "tthis" do? Wouldn't
>> point simply return an object literal (no "this <&")?
>
> No, because the [[Construct]] internal method set this to a new object whose
> [[Prototype]] is correctly initialized to Point.prototype. You could return:
> Point.prototype <| { ...
Got it. Nice.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
twitter.com/rauschma
home: rauschma.de
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
