The real JavaScript 'character wall'. On 27 December 2017 at 21:30, Sebastian Cholewa < sebastian.chol...@interia.eu> wrote:
> On PC writing “§” character wouldn’t be convenient, as it’s not on > keyboard. One would has to copy and paste it. I see this as problematic. > Writing code should not require any extra acrobatics with set of characters. > > To be more constructive, available characters are: > !@#$%^&*()_+-=[]{};:'",<.>/? > > W dniu .12.2017 o 21:56 Tamás Halasi <trusted.tom...@gmail.com> pisze: > > > 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 <isiahmead...@gmail.com>: >> >> 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 >>> m...@isiahmeadows.com >>> >>> 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 <trusted.tom...@gmail.com> >>> 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 >>> > es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss