I find the call form of the operator (`a::b()`) very useful on its own. However, I think the main question is, will shipping the prefixed bind or prefixed call forms of the operator (`::a.b`, `::a.b()`), and/or the bind form of the operator (`a::b`), definitely preclude future extension with partial application, etc, or can those still be worked in somehow? If there's a way to include all four forms and leave open the future possibility of extension, I think, as Domenic points out, that we would see a lot of value from the bind and prefix forms as well.
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > On Behalf Of Matthew Robb > > > I would be significantly less excited about it if this happens. The > ability to pass around "lightly" bound references to methods is a big deal > imo and a large part of the value in this proposal. > > Definitely agree. Being able to do `foo.map(::this.bar)` is really great, > and even `const extracted = ::foo.bar` is nothing to sneeze at. > > I know there's a thread on the issue tracker where a few vocal voices are > complaining that they want partial application syntax and bikeshedding on > various operator forms related to that, but I don't think that should > discourage the excellent benefits that you're giving to everyone but those > few. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
