Should not “private fields” be a decorator ?
From: Jordan Harband [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:32 PM To: Kenneth Powers <[email protected]> Cc: es-discuss <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Syntax Proposal: Anonymous Arguments @ 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
