On Oct 30, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Oct 30, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > >>> The only thing I find off the mark is the typography of <|. In light of >>> this, and of the anti-grawlix reaction among many people, could we revisit >>> an infix operator used in restricted productions with [no LineTerminator >>> here] on the left of the operator contextual keyword? >> >> I hope this is not just in deference to a few vocal opponents. > > That's not the way to approach this. You could be among the few vocal > *pro*ponents of <| -- do we need a statistically significant and valid survey? > > There are plenty of fonts in which the triangle appearance is ugly or lost. > There are people who object independent of fonts to JS growing line-noise > hair at its advanced age. These are both worth considering. They can't be > dismissed with "few" and "vocal".
I've heard the "line noise" objection many time but I don't understand the thinking that seems to say you can only introduce new symbology into a language at its initial creation and that all post initial release extensions must be natural language based. <| or <: or "beget" is going to be a very important "operator" going forward and is used in expression context where the norm is special character-based operators. Adding a new symbol for such an operator seems quite reasonable. Wholesale re-grawlix-ifying the entire language would be unacceptable. Adding one or two new symbols for key features is not that. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
