> but I'd vote for `Math.greaterThan` I agree with this. This solution also disambiguates negate and minus which is good. If we were to introduce operators as functions with syntax I would prefer if there was some syntax to know if the operator was a binary or unary function.
Regarding operators how does this proposal interact with the proposal for value types and operator overloading? 2015-10-15 23:08 GMT+02:00 Michael McGlothlin <mike.mcgloth...@gmail.com>: > It'd be simple to just define all operators as function​s and the actual > operator is just syntaxial sugar. And then if you wanted to pass the > operator you'd simply pass it's function around like you would any other > function. Even your `Math.['>']` seems far safer than `Math.>` or just `>` > but I'd vote for `Math.greaterThan` as being the best name. Saving a couple > letters of typing isn't worth the price of hours more debugging. > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
