> Le 11 juin 2015 à 17:56, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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.
The prefixed bind operator won’t preclude the possibility to add syntax for partial application; the only limitation is that those two separable operations could maybe not be conflated into one operator, like the `.bind()` method. A more interesting issue in my view is whether a prefix (`::obj.meth`) is the best syntax. An infix alternative like `obj->meth` might be interesting if the left term is itself a complex expression. —Claude _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
