+1 for operators as functions (I frequently is them in languages that have them), but there is an ambiguous case that frequently gets me: does `(-)` represent subtraction or negation. It's usually the former in languages with operators as functions.
But here's a couple other potential syntactical ambiguities, dealing with ASI: ```js // Is this `x => f(x)` or `x = (>); f(x)` x => f(x) // Is this `-x` or `-; x`? - x ``` Those can be addressed with a cover production to be used for expression statements and direct value assignment, requiring parentheses to clarify the latter case in each. A similar ambiguity problem, arguably harder to resolve, is partially applied subtraction, such as `(- 2)`. Is that a -2 or is it equivalent to `x => x - 2`? I will caution on this idea, as I know that's the next logical step. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 06:43 Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it possible to extend JavaScript syntax to support Swift style block > syntax[1]? > > In Swift it's possible to omit return keyword > ``` > > 1. reversed = names.sort( { s1, s2 in s1 > s2 } ) > > ``` > > > As you note below this is already possible in es6, and might I add, has > much more intuitive syntax in Es6. The swift syntax looks like a list > comprehension gone wrong. > > or omit argument declaration like this: > > ``` > > 1. reversed = names.sort( { $0 > $1 } ) > > ``` > > > I for one think this is a bad idea - use rest arguments instead. It's > pretty terrible as far as readability goes, although I'd like to see more > examples of it being used in Swift code. > > or apply an operator to arguments of a function > > ``` > > 1. reversed = names.sort(>) > > ``` > > > This might actually be possible - I can't think of any ambiguous > situations for passing operators as if they were first class functions. If > it is possible, I'd like to see this done. > > We have the first feature in ES2015 already: > > ``` > let sorted = names.sort((a, b)=> a > b); > ``` > > But for omitting argument declaration we need to find an alternative to > $0, $1... since those are valid variable names in JS. Maybe we can use #0, > #1... instead. > > This is very useful for functional programming aspect of JS. For example > in a filter function: > > ``` > let passed = objs.filter(#0.passed) > ``` > > [1][ > https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Closures.html > ] > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
