What does this mean:
let f = @; On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:32 PM Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: > @ is currently reserved for decorators, # currently for private fields. > There aren't a lot of compelling syntax options left, to be sure. > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kenneth Powers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What proposal is "@" reserved for, by chance? I was trying to pick >> something that both wasn't used and can't be the name of a variable (e.g., >> underscore). I saw another proposal for "?" for partially applying >> functions, but that would be potentially ambiguous with the ternary >> operator. >> >> As for resolving ambiguity, why not just do what Scala does >> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19916169/scala-arguments-of-nested-lambdas-with-short-syntax/19917720>? >> It would seem to me that nesting these functions would be a sign you need >> to refactor anyway. >> >> As far as meriting its own syntax, that's why I referenced another >> language where the implementors found that it did merit its own syntax >> (though the underscore in Scala also does a lot more). >> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In Scala, the ambiguity of the underscore causes lots of confusion when >>> you have nested functions - how is that handled in your proposal? >>> >>> Bear in mind, I think it's a tough argument that `@ + 1` is so much >>> better than `n => n + 1` that it warrants its own syntax. >>> >>> Separately, the "@" is reserved for an existing proposal, so you'd have >>> to come up with different syntax anyways. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Kenneth Powers <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a proposal for new syntax in ES inspired by the placeholder >>>> syntax in Scala Functions >>>> <http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/quasiquotes/expression-details.html#function> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Essentially, the idea would be to allow anonymous arguments. The most >>>> simple example would be a function which takes one argument (as far as the >>>> programmer is concerned): >>>> >>>> [1, 2, 3].map(@ + 1) >>>> >>>> This would be the same thing as: >>>> >>>> [1, 2, 3].map(n => n + 1) >>>> >>>> Just like in Scala, an anonymous function is created. This concept can >>>> be further extended in ES: >>>> >>>> [1, 2, 3].reduce(@0 + @1, 0) >>>> >>>> Which would be the same thing as: >>>> >>>> [1, 2, 3].reduce((sum, n) => sum + n, 0) >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
