> Le 23 sept. 2016 à 20:35, Kenneth Powers <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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.
Concretely, when you write: ```js listOfNumbers.map(Math.floor(@) + 1) ``` what does it mean: ```js _ => listOfNumbers.map(Math.floor(_) + 1) // (1) listOfNumbers.map(_ => Math.floor(_) + 1) // (2) listOfNumbers.map(Math.floor(_ => _) + 1) // (3) ``` ? Although the most reasonable interpretation for a human would be (2), because the parser is unable to read your mind or to make a qualitative distinction between `listOfNumbers.map ` and `Math.floor` (both are just functions), it will most probably misinterpret it as (3). That syntax looks like an attractive nuisance to me. —Claude
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
