Except it's not. The identifier `foo\u0048` is equivalent to `fooA`, for example. -----
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 Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Tamás Halasi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
