Note, do we want to distinguish the binary operator Symbol['_+_'] from the unary operator Symbol['+_']. Also, I am not sure how extendable the language is, especially if we are looking for operators like Symbol['_>>=_'].
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Coroutines <[email protected]> wrote: > How I imagined *binary* operator invocation would work is this: > > Our example: a + b > > If a or b is an object we try to look for an overloaded operator to > call like so: > > (a[Symbol('+')] || b[Symbol('+')])(a, b) > > ^ disregard that I'm assuming both a and b are objects I can index safely > > Okay, so turns out neither a nor b have an overloaded operator for > '+'. We default to calling the normal operator handler that coerces > with valueOf() as necessary. > > To me this seemed rather simple.. Operators would just be defined > like: some_object[Symbol('~')] = function (lhs, rhs) { ... } > > The only confusion I see is if we want to define explicitly the > postfix or prefix form of unary operators like ++. I don't know what > I'd call them as symbols. > > I always saw overloading operators with Symbols, but you could just > have reserved member names on the prototype of the object as well ~ > '++operator' similar to C++ ? > _______________________________________________ > 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
