I found the underscores in Scala confusing at first, for sure. Of course, after a couple months working with the language, you feel right at home.
Worth noting that Swift does something kind of like Bash, with indexed shorthand argument names <https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Closures.html>, which lets you can reuse your anonymous argument. It comes in handy when you don’t want to clutter code with names for things that are obvious. But I think it only works within curly braces. Obviously, both variations require judgment of knowing when the meaning of the argument is self-evident. > On Sep 23, 2016, at 16:31, 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] > <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 > <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
