Ah, OK. Spitballing: A synonym of tag then, maybe? Alas, label is out. If the term was, say, “mark” then one could conceivably say “mark function” instead of handler.
On Aug 3, 2012, at 17:52 , Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: >> Only “tag” seem inferior to “quasi handler”, because that former term is >> already used in HTML. > > I didn't intentionally rename "quasi handler" to "tag". I titled the section > of the specification that defines the syntax for specifying a handler as > "Tagged Quasis" (after the meeting retitled to "Tagged Templates"). And > used the terms "tagged quasi" and "untagged quasi" in the slide deck I > presented at the meeting. > > I believe I picked up the term "tag" from the BNF used on the Wiki proposal > page > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:quasis#literal_portion_syntax > . It says (approximately): > QuasiLiteral :: > QuasiTag ` LiteralPortion QuasiLiteralTail > > The term "handler" is also used in the proposal, but it doesn't appear that > either "handler" or "tag" was designated as the "official" terminology. > > I think it is fine to refer to a function that are called when evaluating a > template string as "template string handler". That will probably often get > abbreviated to just "handler". > > However, in talking about the syntactic forms it seems awkward to say "a > template string with a handler" or a "handled template string". In those > situations it may flow better to refer to the expression that provides the > handler value as the "tag" and hence we would say a "tagged template string". > > I don't have anything invested in any of this terminology, so I'd happy to > adjust it for something that is clearer to users. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
