I was looking through the notes on the last meeting, in particular the bit about Partial Application: http://rwaldron.github.io/tc39-notes/2017-09_sep-28.html#13i-partial-application
The current sticking point was that the syntax looked like a function call instead of function definition, but my first thought was that this could be fixed by using a simple token either before the function name, or between it and the brackets. For example, given a current function foo, the current proposal would have const bar = foo(1, ?) // roughly: bar = x => foo(1,x) While the choice of token is arbitrary, I'll go with '@' (Because I've got to pick something, and it kind of suggests application. It's not important! ). I would suggest having one of these two as Partial Application syntax: const bar = @foo(1, ?) const bar = foo@(1, ?) // my preferred version Are there any issues with solving the issue in this manner? I know that adding new syntax unnecessarily should be avoided, but this is for clarity. Another that's occurred to me is to allow a shorthand for arrow functions: const baz1 = (x, 1, ...y) => foo(x, 1, ...y) const baz2 = (?, 1, ...) => foo // shorthand for above This would require parsing to check the RHS is just a function identifier, but does suggest the intent of a function that passes arguments to a function. Michael
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
