Damn. I wonder why is that useful. But whatever. What symbol do you think would be the best? A binary operator have to have an expression at its left side, so *, /, %, >, <, &, ^ or | might be good.
2017-12-28 16:19 GMT+01:00 Isiah Meadows <[email protected]>: > 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
