Ha! So there is.... On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 13:23 Алексей <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
