Hi There is already an issue on that https://github.com/rbuckton/proposal-partial-application/issues/13
2017-12-04 15:03 GMT+02:00 Michael Rosefield <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
