Implement it; user-test it; auto-check the grammar for ambiguity and
other problems.
/be
Christoph Pojer wrote:
So I take it most would prefer this as a prefix operator. What would
be the next steps involved to iterate on this idea?
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Brendan Eich<[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah, and it would line up with cover grammar needed for
refutable-by-default patterns.
/be
Matthew Robb wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Brendan Eich<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Did you keep backward compatibility? `x?.1:y` must continue to work.
This is why I suggested a leading operator (`?a.?b()`) because it seems
like it would have the least potential for conflict with existing valid
syntax
- Matthew Robb
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
