On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com> wrote: > Ethan is making my point far better than I did, and I agree completely about > the issue of unary operators visually appearing more tightly bound than > binary operators. > > At this point it seems fair to at least acknowledge the prospect of > significant whitespace. > > ``` > -x**2 === -(x ** 2) > -x ** 2 === (-x) ** 2 > ```
One kind of cost that I haven't seen mentioned (and is relevant re:whitespace) is the impact on minifiers and other tools that use JS as output, which have to deal with operator precedence/whitespace rules in quite complicated ways. There's a nice recent piece about precedence bugs in a minifier: https://zyan.scripts.mit.edu/blog/backdooring-js/ Making the creation and maintenance of systems like minifiers harder is a real cost worth bearing in mind when updating already-subtle existing rules. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
