Welp I keep replying this wrong (how should I configure my email client?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It /could/ in theory be used like this:
function path(s) {
if (s.charAt(0) == '/') { s.=substring(1); }
// your stuff here
}
On 10/08/15 04:50 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
not only it's badly readable and reminds me the PHP string concatenation,
but it promotes different type assignment which is a performance, and
virtually strongly typed, anti-pattern.
I think Brendan said already it all, the proposal is badly described,
and it solve pretty much nothing in the real world.
Probably we can just move on and ignore the list of -1 we'll all put
in? ;-)
Best Regards
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:46 PM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Please no, while i can see how logically it's derived from a = a + 1
a = a.f()
a .= f()
seems like a bad idea
i can hardly see the dot
why would i replace the object from which i'm calling the method
in most cases looks inefficient
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Do not send "Please add" messages with two-line, half-baked
sketches of extensions to the language. That's just injecting
noise with very little signal.
The "-1" you received will be the answer if pressed from
everyone on TC39, I would bet real money. Syntax is expensive,
adding it for little semantic gain and some downside
user-confusion risk (plus a small complexity tax hike for the
language in full) is never the right answer.
That you can scratch this itch (and many others like it) via
sweet.js does not argue for incorporating any such =. or .=
operator into the core language. Analyze developer patterns
and nearby languages for better candidate extensions that
solve more serious usability or greater issues.
/be
Florent FAYOLLE wrote:
Hello,
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h() should be x = x.f().g().h()
+1! I've made some weeks ago a prototype of this in sweet.js:
https://github.com/fflorent/member-access-assignment
Except that the syntax is rather =. (I have probably been
influenced by the CoffeeScript's existential operator).
The reverse looks fine to me too.
-1 Please no :)
Why?
Florent
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Disclaimer: these emails are public and can be accessed from <TODO: get a non-DHCP
IP and put it here>. If you do not agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
