In case anyone is reading this on esdiscuss.org, the 2nd link gets broken when posting it. It's this one (edited on esdiscuss.org):
https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 at 17:36 kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > 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_______________________________________________ > 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
