I like it but I think I would prefer to make it explicit. Something like: foo = foo.partial(1, ?, 2, ???, 3)
Extending it to bind when I want to do something like: obj.foo = foo.bind(obj, 1, ?, 2, ???, 3) WDYT? On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski < [email protected]> wrote: > Yesterday I came up with an idea for syntactic sugar for partial > application, introducing two new operators: placeholder (`?`) and rest > placeholder (`???`). > > You can see the details in a proposal gist I made [1], but the gist of the > gist is that you could do partial application like this: > > foo(1, ?, 2); > > or with the rest placeholder: > > foo(?, 1, ???); > > This allows for partial application at arbitrary argument indices. > > There's a cowpath to be paved here as well, lodash introduced placeholders > for _.partial as of 3.0.0 [2], where you can do something similar: > > _.partial(foo, 1, _, 2); > _.partial(foo, _, 1); > > However, the proposed syntax is even more flexible than that of lodash > because it also allows you to have rest placeholders at arbitrary argument > indices instead of at the end, e.g. > > foo(1, ???, 2); > > would have to be expressed with lodash as > > _.partialRight(_.partial(foo, 1), 2); > > WDYT? > > [1] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5c4f6ea07ad3017d61be > [2] https://lodash.com/docs#partial > > _______________________________________________ > 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
