Who would think not knowing what `a+b` could do as a pitfall? /s I am not a big fan of overloading though, since it presents more mental complexity as they map to functions without looking like function calls.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Who would have thought using completely un-semantic idioms such as |0 and > !! would lead to issues down the line? /s > > On 28 December 2015 at 14:50, Nicolas B. Pierron < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This is right, currently code such as "asm js" rely on "a | 0" and >> "+a" to force a type interpretation. Having an override means that we >> would have to guard explicitly against overridden the operator before >> entering these sections of code. >> This will increase the cost of cold calls. If this is a frequent >> path, then we would have to infer the type as long as possible to >> remove such guards. >> >> Currently, proxies have more important issues in SpiderMonkey, as they >> allow to instrument the lookup of properties (which is still in C++) >> in a side-effectful way. >> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Frankie Bagnardi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Generally letting proxies do more things is a good thing, but what >> would be >> > the cost in optimizing JITs? It seems like e.g. making `a + b` or `a | >> 0` >> > more flexible would also make them slower. Is this incorrect? >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:23 AM, KOLANICH <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I dislike this proposal. >> >> 1 It is not very good to limit overrideable operators to value classes. >> >> 2 It is not very good to have a lot of custom operators, it will break >> >> code readability and will allow more efficient obfuscration. >> >> 3 I think that most of binary non-assigning operators must return a new >> >> object and thats' why they should be not object methods, but the >> methods >> >> taking 2 (or more if chained!) objects and return the result usually >> of same >> >> type. >> >> >> >> вторник, 22 декабря 2015г., 21:45 +03:00 от Sander Deryckere >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> >> >> IMO, operator overloading is important and different enough to warrant >> a >> >> separate syntax. >> >> >> >> But the difficulty isn't in defining the operator, but in the ambiguous >> >> cases. Like what to do when there are 2 different types, how to make >> sure >> >> certain relations will stay correct, ... >> >> >> >> There's a nice presentation from Brendan Eich here: >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/value-objects2 >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sander >> >> >> >> 2015-12-18 21:24 GMT+01:00 KOLANICH <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> Hello. What do you think about overriding operators using proxies? >> >> >> >> For example >> >> function A(r=""){ >> >> this.rep=r; >> >> return new Proxy(this,{operators:{"+":function(a,b){return new >> >> A(a.rep+"+"+b.rep);}}}); >> >> } >> >> let a=new A("a"), b=new A("b"); >> >> let c=a+b; >> >> console.log(c.rep);//a+b >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Nicolas B. Pierron >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
