Hmm I see. I'll definitely remove the multiple ? marks and keep it one level. And change the # to something else... For example, §. With these changes, is there anything which should be changed?
2017-12-27 21:17 GMT+01:00 Isiah Meadows <[email protected]>: > My concern: I get the concept, and could see how at the first level > (e.g. `#? + ?`) it could be useful, but I can tell you that this > doesn't look especially obvious, and starts to look almost like the > line noise of some Perl or APL [1]/J [2]/etc.: > > ``` > // Example 1: > let foo = #foo(#???:??) > > // Example 2: > let constant = ##?? > > // Example 3: > let makeAdder = ##?+?? > ``` > > And I agree with Mike in that it does remind me of De Bruijn indices. > Those are nice in binary encodings, but they tend to start looking > like line noise after sufficient depth. (An entire esoteric language > has been formed based on this whole thing: Binary Lambda Calculus > [3].) > > Oh, and this will most *certainly* conflict with the stage 3 private > property proposal: > > ```js > let bar = () => console.log("outer") > class Foo { > #bar = () => console.log("inner") > > method() { > // Should this return a thunk or log "inner"? > list.map(##bar(1, 2, ?)) > } > } > ``` > > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) > [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language) > [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20161019165606/https://en. > wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_lambda_calculus > > ----- > > Isiah Meadows > [email protected] > > Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? > Send me an email and we can get started. > www.isiahmeadows.com > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Tamás Halasi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This sentence ends abruptly. What would this proposal improve? > > > > Oops, I accidentally pressed Send... > > So, it would improve functional programming in general, the examples are > in > > the README. > > > >> Is this lambdas with De Bruijn indices? > > > > Hmm, I haven't heard of them yet, but by looking at the surface, they > seems > > to be similar. > > > >> You have ?? and ??? for referring to outer layers. Is there no > ambiguity > >> there? > > > > That's a very good point! I haven't thought of that. I can't think of a > > solution, the lookahead is indeed very bad. I opened an issue. I think > the > > notation (for accessing arguments from outer layers) will have to be > changed > > / removed. > > > > Thanks for the feedback! :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
