Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification! There has recently been some discussion about the semantics of `|>` in [1]. I think what you're looking for is [2], perhaps?
[1] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50 [2] https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition On Friday, September 1, 2017 1:52:31 PM CEST Peter van der Zee wrote: > > Sorry, but your message looks very opinionated and I can't seem to find > > any > > objective reasoning in there. > > Nah, you might be thrown off by the different grammar ;) > > Ok. > > Thing is, `|>` would introduce a new way of calling a function in a > way that is not at all in line with how functions are called in JS. > That means JS devs won't easily recognize `a |> b` as easily as they > do `b(a)`. (Also consider less text-book-y examples here please...) > > You might argue that this will be a transitional period and I will > counter you with an existential question; Why at all? What does this > solve? And is it worth the cognitive overhead? > > I think this is a bad addition to the language. One that doesn't "fit" > with how the language currently works. And one that will lead to many > devs being thoroughly confused when confronted with this. > > But, I'm not asking you to take my opinion on it. Research it. Please > do some research on this. Reach out to devs of all types (not just > react devs, not just functional programmers, not just vanilla JS > coders, not just code golfers, and definitely not just people on the > TC39) and figure out how they will respond when confronted with > additions like this. And please post those results here. I don't mind > being wrong. As long as you can back those claims up when introducing > something like this. > > - peter
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
