Do you think \ would be a good replacement for #? It is currently illegal outside string literals as far as I know.
2017-12-28 1:23 GMT+01:00 Alexander Jones <[email protected]>: > The real JavaScript 'character wall'. > > On 27 December 2017 at 21:30, Sebastian Cholewa < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
